You're not thinking big enough.
Some would miss the planet entirely.
Some would graze the edges - these are the ones that look like they are going in different directions to an observer placed centrally on the planet.
Those meteorites wouldn't be visible to you since they would be far beyond the horizon. The Earth's atmoshpere is very thin compared to its circumference and the little bit of the sky that you can see would only have meteorites coming almost straight down. You are correct that they still would appear to be going in all kinds of directions if they're not coming straight at you, but I think it would be obvious that they were going straight down because they would be very close and going extremely fast and not 'streak' and be visible for a long time like the ones from the articles...
Actually there is a term called the 'radiant' when discussing meteor showers - all the meteors in a particular stream will appear to come from the same patch of sky, radiating outwards.
It's similar to bugs heading towards your windscreen - they all appear to originate from one point (ahead on the highway) but as they get closer they radiate out and hit different parts of the windscreen from your perspective.
I presume that at this time the radiant was close to 90 degrees overhead - then they would appear to be heading in different directions.
Perhaps. But in that case I think the meteorites would not 'streak' across the sky; they'd be coming almost straight down. If you were close enough to see them at all they would be going extremely fast and it would be obvious that they were going straight down.
It's very odd that the CNN article said the second fireball was going the other way from the first one. If they were both from a debris cloud and occurred at the same time in the same place they should have been going in exaclty the same direction since they would be travelling in more or less the same direction and the orientation of the Earth in relation to their path would be more or less the same...
If the article is correct, one or both of the fireballs must have been something else, such as a sattelite reentering the atmosphere, despite all the quotes from experts saying that they were meteorites...
I read a short SF story a long time ago which was about 'slow glass', which was ordinary glass except that light would take several decades to go through a piece as thick as a window pane. People made their living by 'farming' this glass; putting sheets of it on mountain slopes and other places with great views, so people could later buy these sheets and put them in their homes for a decade of looking out on a mountain vista despite living in a crowded city. Interesting things happened such as murders being witnessed that took places years before.
Does anyone remember this? I can't find the story anymore and I have no idea who wrote it or where it was published.
/Pepijn
Re:10 baht coins look like 2 Euro (for machines)
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
Have you actually tried it?
I don't think it would work, for two reasons: first, vending machines are _very_ particular about the size and weight, so 'almost' the same is probably not good enough. Second, size and weight are not the only properties of a coin checked by a vending machine. It also looks at its composition, thickness, etc.
There are so many different coins in the world that it would be impossible to avoid having coins with similar size and weight as some other coin in the world...
Actually, I think a US-wide government site would be easier than a European one. You can't really compare the US to Europe; the US are one country, Europe is many countries that differ more culturally and in the way they are governed than the different states of the US do.
You should compare those government sites of the UK and now France to one single US state having a site like that. That should be no harder to do than here in Europe.
Me, I like to think that those laws reflect what we would like capitalism to be like, and that that is what should be called "normal" capitalism.
But regardless of what you want to call it, Micro$oft does behave like that, and it is a lot worse than most other companies, and it is also so bad that it warrants spelling Micro$oft with a $, which what we were talking about...
All I'll say is that you should be really glad the car manufacturer's concern for safety isn't at the same level as Micro$oft's concern for security...
Then there's something wrong with either your knowledge of basic English or of basic logic, anonymous coward. I'll try to explain it as simply as possible:
1) "These security leaks" does not mean "any imaginable bug", hence saying that software should not have contained "these security leaks" is not the same as saying that the software should not have contained any bugs at all
2) There is a difference between "could" and "should". Saying that software "should" be bug free is not the same as saying that it "could" ever be entirely bug free. In fact, I said as much later on.
Do nothing! Personally, I can't wait to see the parasitic GPL go to court and lose. If you write a book on fishing, and after reading it I invent a new maneuver that allows the catching of a larger type of bass, I shouldn't be forced to tell you how I did it. That isn't freedom, it's not even communism, it's just tyranny with a pretty face.
...it also isn't the GPL. Please try to understand it before attacking it...
> If some piece of software contained a bug that the operator did not (and could not, I'm speaking generally here, not regarding the sendmail example) know about, then I would say it's entirely the creator of that piece of software's fault...
but how can you blame the creator of the software if he has been telling the whole world for months that he is offering a fix/patch for a hole ?
First of all, the fact that he tells the world about the hole doesn't absolve him from blame for the hole being there in the first place! And secondly, my remark which you quoted was about cases where the operator couldn't know about the hole, because the creator didn't tell the whole world about it.
come on, don't tell us that all software you are developing is always 100% free of errors, we all miss something, maybe not that massively like M$ is missing things, but errors happen.
Exactly! We make an effort to remove the errors, M$ doesn't (or at least not nearly enough), because they know it won't affect their sales figures. The bugs and security holes won't be discovered until after the software has been bought and M$ has got their money. I'm not saying that M$ is consiously leaving bugs and security holes that they know about in the software (although I wouldn't put it past them), I'm saying they they consiously don't make an effort to find them.
we have to blame the ignorance of the users, we all knwo that any service running on our machines increases the risk to get hacked, but these people do n ot even know that they have sth. like IIS running, thats the problem and it is not totally M$' fault.
It's part of the problem, not the problem. Like I said: the blame is partly for the operator, and partly for the software's creator, in this case M$.
Don't worry, in a patent petition, I'll write Microsoft. But here, I'll keep saying Micro$oft, since it is my opinion that Micro$oft is far more profit oriented than most companies.
The way Micro$oft behaves is not normal capitalism. Normal capitalism is trying to make money by providing a useful and quality service or product to consumers, preferably in competition with others. Micro$oft's form of capitalism is to try and make as much money as possible and avoid competing with others by any means possible, legal or no, with no regard for any consumer interests other than those that will make them buy M$ products (such as the superficial qualities of speed and good looks). The result (among other things) is software that is full of security holes, since those are not listed on the box...
I'm not saying that no other company acts this way, I'm saying that most don't and that Micro$oft is probably the worst of all that do.
Actually, I'm a professional programmer, so I know what I'm talking about. Also, I never said that software could or should be bug-free. Please read a bit better and don't presume to know so much about people before you put your foot in your mouth.
I could have sworn both the Code Red and Nimda (multiple) exploits were patched in October *last year*.
What he meant was (and I agree), that Micro$oft are not going to do anything about the general bad quality of their programs with respect to security.
Yes its the fault of the users not keeping their machines up-to-date, but please, don't blame this on MS when they released, and advertised, a patch promptly.
The software should not have contained these security leaks to begin with! It's sad that a large part of the industry has apparently been so brainwashed by Micro$oft that they think it's somehow inevitable for software to be as buggy and insecure as Micro$oft's and that M$ is not to blame for it. That's bullshit. If you care, it's perfectly possible to write code that doesn't crash and doesn't allow hackers and virusses to take over your computer (at least, to an extent that is several orders of magnitude larger than that of M$ software). The problem is, M$ doesn't care, all they care about is making a quick buck.
Heck, it'd be like some idiot running an old version of Sendmail blaming the sendmail author(s) on his box getting hacked. If you're on the net, its you responibility to stay safe.
But sendmail would be partly to blame! It shouldn't have contained the bug that allowed the box getting hacked in the first place.
Of course I agree that the main responsibility for keeping a box secure is the operator's, but that doesn't mean that if it does get hacked it is all the operator's fault! If some piece of software contained a bug that the operator did not (and could not, I'm speaking generally here, not regarding the sendmail example) know about, then I would say it's entirely the creator of that piece of software's fault...
Registration by phone line, you'd think most people are/will be still stuck doing this.
Caller ID, plus a reverse phone number lookup and what more do you need to know?
You can disable caller ID, either permanently, or on a call by call basis.
Can a MAC adress be linked to your IP by going to a site or server (windows update active X controls?)?
No, that's not possible. The only one who knows your MAC address is your local gateway. MAC addresses aren't even guaranteed to be unique. If you're a home user with just a dialup connection, you don't even have a MAC address.
Lookup a name and get a street adress, use public records to see who owns the home and it's value. you know they'll get the IP and know all about the computer, partner with doubleclick(or whoever) for tracking surfing habits..
It's not quite as bad as that. Micro$oft has no way of obtaining your telephone number (provided you disabled caller ID), and hence no way of obtaining your name or address, etc. They also don't know your IP address (most people have dynamic IP addresses anyway, so even if they did it wouldn't be of much use). And they also don't know all about the computer, since all the information is hashed before it's sent to M$ (assuming that these guys are correct about how the process works, and my impression is that they did a thorough job).
No, they don't have a right to know the information about the person to whom they are sending this software! This is a large part of the entire online privacy issue. Companies think they are somehow entitled to all kind of irrelevant personal information, and apparently, so do some people.
They have an interest to know who they are sending the software to, sure, but that's totally different. It's even their prerogative to send the software only on the condition that I give them my personal information. But if I do so, it's because I agree that it's fair for them to have it, not because I think they are entitled to it.
I happen not to think it's fair for them to have my personal information, so I usually give false information, or I just don't use their service. That's my prerogative...
For people who only steal MP3's yes. But for people like me (empeg owners and other people who rip their own CD's for the purpose of listening to them with something other than a CD player) it won't matter at all.
Buy an empeg (or Rio Car, as they're called these days). Look here. 60 GB of MP3's (or WAV's or WMA's with the next update) in your car or at home. I own one and it's the best value for money I've bought in a long time.
Can you change the region of your player? If so, setting the player to the same region as the movie should allow you to play it.
I've heard of Yamakawa players having this problem if you set them to region free. My Cyberhome player has so far played every movie I threw at it while set to region free, even Hollow Man, which is supposedly one of those DVD's that checks if it's being played on a region free player.
Not the same thing. The Empeg is harddisk based, that Kenwood is CD based.
The crucial difference and the reason that I bought one is that the Empeg allows you to store ALL the music you own. I have with me at all times my entire music collection...
There are other advantages. The Empeg's software is upgradable. In the near future we're getting WMA and WAV support (for free), and in the slightly more distant future voice recognition. The quality of the components is top notch, so it sounds very good and will last a long time. The UI is well designed and makes navigating your recursive playlists very easy. Also, it looks cool, with a whole bunch of impressive animated displays that move to the music.
Also, it runs Linux...:-)
I can recommend it to everyone, it's an extremely cool piece of machinery, and while expensive, it is very much worth it...
There's no way your friend could have seen this several weeks ago in Manchester. First of all, it probably wasn't even put together then. They're deep into post-production, so most of what was shown probably didn't even exist in the current form yet. According to PJ, the film arrived wet at the airport...
Secondly, there's no reason New Line would want to screen it in Manchester.
What he could have seen though is the first theatrical teaser trailer for the movie, which has was releases several months ago now. Though I doubt that that was what he saw, because it's a very good trailer and you would have to be extremely cynical and sour to call it 'complete crap'.
I think you've been misinformed. At least in the Netherlands (I don't know about the rest of Europe. Europe is far less of a united entity as you apparently think) protection against discrimination is very good, better than in the US. A company is free to ask for your photograph, but if it is suspected that they use it to discriminate against you they'll get slammed very quickly. Article one in the Dutch constitution states: 'All those who are located in the Netherlands shall be treated equally under equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, lifestyle, politics, race, gender or any other grounds is prohibited.'
Slashdot Mirror
Some would miss the planet entirely.
Some would graze the edges - these are the ones that look like they are going in different directions to an observer placed centrally on the planet.
Those meteorites wouldn't be visible to you since they would be far beyond the horizon. The Earth's atmoshpere is very thin compared to its circumference and the little bit of the sky that you can see would only have meteorites coming almost straight down. You are correct that they still would appear to be going in all kinds of directions if they're not coming straight at you, but I think it would be obvious that they were going straight down because they would be very close and going extremely fast and not 'streak' and be visible for a long time like the ones from the articles...
It's similar to bugs heading towards your windscreen - they all appear to originate from one point (ahead on the highway) but as they get closer they radiate out and hit different parts of the windscreen from your perspective.
I presume that at this time the radiant was close to 90 degrees overhead - then they would appear to be heading in different directions.
Perhaps. But in that case I think the meteorites would not 'streak' across the sky; they'd be coming almost straight down. If you were close enough to see them at all they would be going extremely fast and it would be obvious that they were going straight down.
It's very odd that the CNN article said the second fireball was going the other way from the first one. If they were both from a debris cloud and occurred at the same time in the same place they should have been going in exaclty the same direction since they would be travelling in more or less the same direction and the orientation of the Earth in relation to their path would be more or less the same...
If the article is correct, one or both of the fireballs must have been something else, such as a sattelite reentering the atmosphere, despite all the quotes from experts saying that they were meteorites...
I read a short SF story a long time ago which was about 'slow glass', which was ordinary glass except that light would take several decades to go through a piece as thick as a window pane. People made their living by 'farming' this glass; putting sheets of it on mountain slopes and other places with great views, so people could later buy these sheets and put them in their homes for a decade of looking out on a mountain vista despite living in a crowded city. Interesting things happened such as murders being witnessed that took places years before.
Does anyone remember this? I can't find the story anymore and I have no idea who wrote it or where it was published.
/Pepijn
Have you actually tried it?
I don't think it would work, for two reasons: first, vending machines are _very_ particular about the size and weight, so 'almost' the same is probably not good enough. Second, size and weight are not the only properties of a coin checked by a vending machine. It also looks at its composition, thickness, etc.
There are so many different coins in the world that it would be impossible to avoid having coins with similar size and weight as some other coin in the world...
/Pepijn
Actually, I think a US-wide government site would be easier than a European one. You can't really compare the US to Europe; the US are one country, Europe is many countries that differ more culturally and in the way they are governed than the different states of the US do.
You should compare those government sites of the UK and now France to one single US state having a site like that. That should be no harder to do than here in Europe.
It all depends on how cynical you want to be.
Me, I like to think that those laws reflect what we would like capitalism to be like, and that that is what should be called "normal" capitalism.
But regardless of what you want to call it, Micro$oft does behave like that, and it is a lot worse than most other companies, and it is also so bad that it warrants spelling Micro$oft with a $, which what we were talking about...
I'm glad you picked that example.
All I'll say is that you should be really glad the car manufacturer's concern for safety isn't at the same level as Micro$oft's concern for security...
Then there's something wrong with either your knowledge of basic English or of basic logic, anonymous coward. I'll try to explain it as simply as possible:
1) "These security leaks" does not mean "any imaginable bug", hence saying that software should not have contained "these security leaks" is not the same as saying that the software should not have contained any bugs at all
2) There is a difference between "could" and "should". Saying that software "should" be bug free is not the same as saying that it "could" ever be entirely bug free. In fact, I said as much later on.
It's really not that difficult...
Do nothing! Personally, I can't wait to see the parasitic GPL go to court and lose. If you write a book on fishing, and after reading it I invent a new maneuver that allows the catching of a larger type of bass, I shouldn't be forced to tell you how I did it. That isn't freedom, it's not even communism, it's just tyranny with a pretty face.
...it also isn't the GPL. Please try to understand it before attacking it...
> If some piece of software contained a bug that the operator did not (and could not, I'm speaking generally here, not regarding the sendmail example) know about, then I would say it's entirely the creator of that piece of software's fault...
but how can you blame the creator of the software if he has been telling the whole world for months that he is offering a fix/patch for a hole ?
First of all, the fact that he tells the world about the hole doesn't absolve him from blame for the hole being there in the first place! And secondly, my remark which you quoted was about cases where the operator couldn't know about the hole, because the creator didn't tell the whole world about it.
come on, don't tell us that all software you are developing is always 100% free of errors, we all miss something, maybe not that massively like M$ is missing things, but errors happen.
Exactly! We make an effort to remove the errors, M$ doesn't (or at least not nearly enough), because they know it won't affect their sales figures. The bugs and security holes won't be discovered until after the software has been bought and M$ has got their money. I'm not saying that M$ is consiously leaving bugs and security holes that they know about in the software (although I wouldn't put it past them), I'm saying they they consiously don't make an effort to find them.
we have to blame the ignorance of the users, we all knwo that any service running on our machines increases the risk to get hacked, but these people do n ot even know that they have sth. like IIS running, thats the problem and it is not totally M$' fault.
It's part of the problem, not the problem. Like I said: the blame is partly for the operator, and partly for the software's creator, in this case M$.
Don't worry, in a patent petition, I'll write Microsoft. But here, I'll keep saying Micro$oft, since it is my opinion that Micro$oft is far more profit oriented than most companies.
The way Micro$oft behaves is not normal capitalism. Normal capitalism is trying to make money by providing a useful and quality service or product to consumers, preferably in competition with others. Micro$oft's form of capitalism is to try and make as much money as possible and avoid competing with others by any means possible, legal or no, with no regard for any consumer interests other than those that will make them buy M$ products (such as the superficial qualities of speed and good looks). The result (among other things) is software that is full of security holes, since those are not listed on the box...
I'm not saying that no other company acts this way, I'm saying that most don't and that Micro$oft is probably the worst of all that do.
Actually, I'm a professional programmer, so I know what I'm talking about. Also, I never said that software could or should be bug-free. Please read a bit better and don't presume to know so much about people before you put your foot in your mouth.
I could have sworn both the Code Red and Nimda (multiple) exploits were patched in October *last year*.
What he meant was (and I agree), that Micro$oft are not going to do anything about the general bad quality of their programs with respect to security.
Yes its the fault of the users not keeping their machines up-to-date, but please, don't blame this on MS when they released, and advertised, a patch promptly.
The software should not have contained these security leaks to begin with! It's sad that a large part of the industry has apparently been so brainwashed by Micro$oft that they think it's somehow inevitable for software to be as buggy and insecure as Micro$oft's and that M$ is not to blame for it. That's bullshit. If you care, it's perfectly possible to write code that doesn't crash and doesn't allow hackers and virusses to take over your computer (at least, to an extent that is several orders of magnitude larger than that of M$ software). The problem is, M$ doesn't care, all they care about is making a quick buck.
Heck, it'd be like some idiot running an old version of Sendmail blaming the sendmail author(s) on his box getting hacked. If you're on the net, its you responibility to stay safe.
But sendmail would be partly to blame! It shouldn't have contained the bug that allowed the box getting hacked in the first place.
Of course I agree that the main responsibility for keeping a box secure is the operator's, but that doesn't mean that if it does get hacked it is all the operator's fault! If some piece of software contained a bug that the operator did not (and could not, I'm speaking generally here, not regarding the sendmail example) know about, then I would say it's entirely the creator of that piece of software's fault...
> Isn't this exactly what bluetooth is for? Bluetooth is meant for very short range wireless communication. Up to several meters at most.
Registration by phone line, you'd think most people are/will be still stuck doing this. Caller ID, plus a reverse phone number lookup and what more do you need to know?
You can disable caller ID, either permanently, or on a call by call basis.
Can a MAC adress be linked to your IP by going to a site or server (windows update active X controls?)?
No, that's not possible. The only one who knows your MAC address is your local gateway. MAC addresses aren't even guaranteed to be unique. If you're a home user with just a dialup connection, you don't even have a MAC address.
Lookup a name and get a street adress, use public records to see who owns the home and it's value. you know they'll get the IP and know all about the computer, partner with doubleclick(or whoever) for tracking surfing habits..
It's not quite as bad as that. Micro$oft has no way of obtaining your telephone number (provided you disabled caller ID), and hence no way of obtaining your name or address, etc. They also don't know your IP address (most people have dynamic IP addresses anyway, so even if they did it wouldn't be of much use). And they also don't know all about the computer, since all the information is hashed before it's sent to M$ (assuming that these guys are correct about how the process works, and my impression is that they did a thorough job).
It's not _meant_ for cracking anything...
No, they don't have a right to know the information about the person to whom they are sending this software! This is a large part of the entire online privacy issue. Companies think they are somehow entitled to all kind of irrelevant personal information, and apparently, so do some people.
They have an interest to know who they are sending the software to, sure, but that's totally different. It's even their prerogative to send the software only on the condition that I give them my personal information. But if I do so, it's because I agree that it's fair for them to have it, not because I think they are entitled to it.
I happen not to think it's fair for them to have my personal information, so I usually give false information, or I just don't use their service. That's my prerogative...
I suspect that it's because you can play an MP3Pro stream with an MP3 player (but it'll sound worse than with an MP3Pro player).
For people who only steal MP3's yes. But for people like me (empeg owners and other people who rip their own CD's for the purpose of listening to them with something other than a CD player) it won't matter at all.
Buy an empeg (or Rio Car, as they're called these days). Look here. 60 GB of MP3's (or WAV's or WMA's with the next update) in your car or at home. I own one and it's the best value for money I've bought in a long time.
Can you change the region of your player? If so, setting the player to the same region as the movie should allow you to play it.
I've heard of Yamakawa players having this problem if you set them to region free. My Cyberhome player has so far played every movie I threw at it while set to region free, even Hollow Man, which is supposedly one of those DVD's that checks if it's being played on a region free player.
Not the same thing. The Empeg is harddisk based, that Kenwood is CD based.
The crucial difference and the reason that I bought one is that the Empeg allows you to store ALL the music you own. I have with me at all times my entire music collection...
There are other advantages. The Empeg's software is upgradable. In the near future we're getting WMA and WAV support (for free), and in the slightly more distant future voice recognition. The quality of the components is top notch, so it sounds very good and will last a long time. The UI is well designed and makes navigating your recursive playlists very easy. Also, it looks cool, with a whole bunch of impressive animated displays that move to the music.
Also, it runs Linux... :-)
I can recommend it to everyone, it's an extremely cool piece of machinery, and while expensive, it is very much worth it...
There's no way your friend could have seen this several weeks ago in Manchester. First of all, it probably wasn't even put together then. They're deep into post-production, so most of what was shown probably didn't even exist in the current form yet. According to PJ, the film arrived wet at the airport...
Secondly, there's no reason New Line would want to screen it in Manchester.
What he could have seen though is the first theatrical teaser trailer for the movie, which has was releases several months ago now. Though I doubt that that was what he saw, because it's a very good trailer and you would have to be extremely cynical and sour to call it 'complete crap'.
I think you've been misinformed. At least in the Netherlands (I don't know about the rest of Europe. Europe is far less of a united entity as you apparently think) protection against discrimination is very good, better than in the US. A company is free to ask for your photograph, but if it is suspected that they use it to discriminate against you they'll get slammed very quickly. Article one in the Dutch constitution states: 'All those who are located in the Netherlands shall be treated equally under equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, lifestyle, politics, race, gender or any other grounds is prohibited.'