And it's the one that one of the people who commented on TFA proposed: do away with anonymity. Require the account holder's real name, address, and phone number to be publicly viewable. This would result in some real-world repercussions for the griefer, when those who had been griefed got torqued enough to go to the kid's house and beat him up. That happens a few times, and people will start being more careful.
This is not a good idea, of course, but it would solve the problem.
It reminds me of discusions of infinity I vaguely remember. Can you have more or less infinity? If the entire real number set is infinity, would only positive reals be considered infinity/2? Of course not... But only positive reals is less than all reals, is it not?
Yes, you can. But not that way. There are as many positive rational numbers as there are all rational numbers; the cardinality of the sets is equivalent: they are both countable. The integers, natural numbers, rational numbers, prime numbers are all countable sets. Their infinities are the same "size".
The reals, however, are an uncountable set, and their infinity is "bigger" than the integers.
It is also the case that there are an infinite number of larger infinities. (The proof for this is particularly neat).
The authors of the Constitution were very wary of the word "treason" being thrown around, and so were highly specific in what treason is. Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Salon certainly hasn't levied war against the United States. I don't think a reasonable case can be made that releasing these documents in any way aid or comforts the US' enemies (except in the loosest possible sense that they might enjoy some schadenfreude).
Implementing web site captchas at the backbone level would be anything but trivial, for one thing. For another, adding some kind of login script overhead to every packet a backbone router handles would practically be a denial-of-service attack. I really don't think it's "trivial" for Level3, say, to replace all their networking equipment to implement login scripts for every web site that comes across their network.
Now, maybe when you say "backbones" you don't mean what people commonly refer to as the internet backbone, and you're thinking of implementing this closer to the edge. That makes implementation feasible, but it won't solve the problem. Once you start getting closer to the edge - close enough that the people trying to defend themselves have the ability to implement this solution - you'll be vulnerable again. Sure, your routers may not route the bad packets, but your routers have to look at the packets to determine they shouldn't be routed. That eats up bandwidth.
That kind of defeatist attitude doesn't help anyone. We're trying to mock the government, here, and then you show up with your "logic." You're such a buzzkill.
I run several SQL 2005 instances, one of them a 2-node cluster of SQL 2005 SP1 64-bit on Windows 2003 R2 SP2 64-bit, and I don't have this problem. SSIS works just fine. I don't use SQL Mail, so I can't speak to it, but unless SQL Server set up and is running WoW64 without telling me (which, I admit, isn't impossible), SSIS works just dandy in 64-bit land.
Because this is, of course, limited to when Bush shows up, so it's a ringing indictment of his presidency.
The complete shutdown of 10 blocks worth of streets and buildings in downtown Milwaukee when Clinton came through, complete with SS men aiming MP5s at my car when I took the wrong (unmarked as off-limits) side street was, however, a testament to how much he cherished my rights as an American and a human being.
The problem is the flaws that are being attacked aren't necessarily resident on the machines being attacked - as you know, since you mention zombie computers.
But that doesn't make cyber attack bullshit. That's like saying that land invasions are a made up boogeyman because they depend on flaws like "not having a giant impregnable wall surrounding your country." DDoS attacks, in particular, are problematic. A given target has no way to prevent zombied machines from participating in the attack.
Besides which, a DDoS attack is just a bandwidth race. If my home PC were to be attacked like this, there's nothing I, personally, can do about it. My router won't pass any of the packets to my machine, but if there's 6 Mbps worth of incoming traffic, even if I drop it at the router, I still can't get much legit traffic through. I can call my provider, and see if they can stop it upstream, but then it's just a comparison of the bandwidth at the DSLAM to the bandwidth of the attacker. The only thing to hope for is that, somewhere up the chain, you can reach a node with enough bandwidth that the attacker can't overwhelm it. When you start getting up into backbone territory, this isn't a problem.
But - if we hypothesize for the moment an actual planned assault by a country - odds are pretty good that the US DoD, for example, has more bandwidth than Iran.
You and I clearly have different definitions of "easy."
Creating boards for Lode Runner was easy. Creating boards for Arkanoid II: Revenge of Doh was easy. Creating and texturing BSP trees for Doom was...something other than easy.
Not to be a complete cynic, here, but this can be translated as:
"Unpaid labor making product for you to sell can help your bottom line."
I don't think that's entirely revolutionary.
Nor is it a criticism, either of the sentiment or the fact of it. User-generated content is a fantastic way to give a game legs. I've played lots of it, dabbled in making it (not very well), and am all for games including the tools necessary to foster it. Especially on consoles, which are so far behind PCs in this regard they're not even running the same race. No one's getting ripped off, since the people who make the best content enjoy doing what they're doing, and they didn't need to buy some enterprise license of the engine to realize their vision.
But it's still not a terrifically insightful statement.
300 atmospheres is far too little pressure for the interesting forms of ice. To get the neat stuff, you need to be working with a couple hundred MPa, up to around 70 GPa. We're talking about 2000 atmospheres up to 7E5 atmospheres.
That being said, I have no idea what happens when you take the pressure off. But I imagine it would be pretty cool to see......as long as you weren't too close.
Sorry for the double post, but it occurs to me that I misinterpreted your question. If you mean, would the pressure prevent the ice from forming the specific crystal structure that makes ice less dense than water, the answer is yes. But then, so would the ambient temperature.
The pressure will not prevent the ice from forming a crystal structure (it will, in fact, cause the formation of such a structure), but that structure will be more dense than liquid water.
The latter is the answer to the question I thought you asked, the former is the answer to the question you actually asked. Sorry 'bout that.
Of the fourteen types of water ice, only one (Ice Ih, which is also the form that is commonly found on Earth, though Ice Ic can occasionally be found in the upper atmosphere) is less dense than the liquid form. The others form at various temperatures and pressures, and are, in that their density is greater than liquid water, more normal than "common" ice.
In fact, there are two types of ice that occur naturally on this planet, traditional hexagonal ice (Ice Ih) and ice with a cubic lattice (Ice Ic (I'll avoid the too-obvious "Ice Ic, baby" joke, here. You're welcome)).
According to that Wikipedia page, there are 14 different forms of ice which occur at varying temperatures and pressures. "Common" ice, Ice Ih, is, in fact, the odd one out in some respects - for example, it's the only one that is less dense than liquid water.
While amusing, your post is fairly inaccurate. "Hot ice" is a perfectly accurate description of the substance. Or at least, so says Wikipedia. And, if you're not down with the Wiki, arstechnica indicates that Nature also considers "hot ice" a legitimate term.
Points taken. I was, indeed, using a less-stringent definition of "groupthink" than appears to be correct (in a perfect expression of slashdot culture, I didn't do any reading before posting;)). Given the correct definition, I have to agree with you, in that slashdot doesn't exhibit those behaviors or have those causes. The one point that I might take some issue with is "[i]solation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis." Since the material that makes the front page is filtered by a (comparatively) small group of people, there is a certain degree of isolation inherent in the system. The posters' biases, whether intentionally or un-, will tend to prevent some sources from being represented.
I don't mean to portray this as a disadvantage; it is, in fact, the service the site provides. But it does make for a selection bias. Not enough to qualify as true isolation, certainly, but a contributing factor to the perception of "groupthink." The number of comments made about the site being CmdrTaco's blog, therefore he can post what he wants, tend to support this.
On the whole, though, I'll agree with your calling it "Slashdot culture." I'm not completely convinced, however, that the commonality of opinion on some subjects is entirely a matter of people having a like mindset tending to congregate. To some extent, I can't help believing that people's opinions are informed by what the Slashdot culture as a whole tends to believe. Certainly, my point of view on things has often been altered by what I've read other people on this site claiming.
It's difficult, of course, to separate how my opinions have changed in response to rational argument from how they may have changed as a result of conformity to a norm, so it's not a terribly compelling study.
This particular exchange, for example, is an instance of the former. My previous opinion on Slashdot groupthink has been revised as a result of a good argument on your part. Which new opinion, being apparently outside the norm for Slashdot, is an excellent supporting argument for your case.
I'll add "groupthink" to my list of terms that are often used improperly as cop outs and/or appeals to emotion (the term "FUD" is on that list, too).
I don't own a hybrid, so I can't do my own research on this, but I'm going to have to start trying to collect information. If the regenerative braking is as small a piece of the total efficiency gain as you say (and I don't mean to imply I doubt you, I'd just like to collect as many data points as possible before coming to any conclusions), then I do have to wonder about the future of the hybrid as a high-efficiency vehicle.
By which I mean, if the primary gain is the efficiency of the ICE, then there may well be other ways to optimize that performance without incurring the significant mass penalty of the additional motor and battery pack. I realize constant velocity transmissions have been tricky at best, but progress in that field could just as easily yield the same efficiency gains as hybrids.
OTOH, I wonder if the reason regenerative braking isn't as big a deal as I thought comes from a fundamental limitation in the scheme, or from efficiency losses in the regenerating/storage/discharge mechanisms in place. If the latter, then it might still be a huge advantage if the efficiency of the system can be improved.
While your point about blaming "groupthink" when people disagree with you is well-taken, I don't think it's entirely accurate to say there's no such thing as slashdot groupthink.
I'm suddenly tempted to create two new accounts, and post equal numbers of pro-MS and anti-MS rants from each of them attached to the same articles. I'd be interested see how each account got modded. And, by "rants," I specifically mean posts heavy on appeals to emotion, and light on rational arguments. If one set got upmodded or downmodded significantly faster than the other, I'd think it would be a good indicator of groupthink. After all, a rant is a rant, and should ideally be recognized as such irrespective of the position being espoused.
I suspect that we'd see a difference in fairly short order, but I could (obviously) be wholly wrong about that.
My opinion/experience is that, while there are certainly a wide variety of opinions expressed on slashdot (one of the reasons I still come here, though obviously not for as long as you've been coming here), and while I would never claim that the community quashes them, it's also true that there's a distinct "right" way to think if you want to walk the road to slashdot stardom.
I wonder what kind of posting history/sample size I'd need to generate in order to be statistically significant...
if you don't plan on gaming, then it's got some really nice features
That's the part that really puzzles me. One of the biggest things preventing the uptake of F/LOSS amongst PC enthusiasts has always been games - for an awful lot of games, you've had to whip up some deep magic to make them run outside of Windows. Sometimes, you're SOL irrespective of your efforts. This has led to many more dual-boot setups than might otherwise be the case, and to many more people just not bothering than might otherwise be the case.
Virtually everything else you can do with Windows you can do with, say, Linux (specific hardware problems excepted).
So what does MS do? Release a shiny new OS that you can't really play games on.
I'm not particularly anti-MS, but even in my case, if I want a shiny new OS that I can't really play games on, I'll go with some flavor of Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're playing along at home, that's the last line of the post.
And it's the one that one of the people who commented on TFA proposed: do away with anonymity. Require the account holder's real name, address, and phone number to be publicly viewable. This would result in some real-world repercussions for the griefer, when those who had been griefed got torqued enough to go to the kid's house and beat him up. That happens a few times, and people will start being more careful.
This is not a good idea, of course, but it would solve the problem.
I disagree. Arguing by using analogies is like showering with the Swedish National Bikini Team.
JUST LIKE IT, I TELL YOU.
AHEM
That last line was supposed to be:
The proof for this is particularly neat.
It reminds me of discusions of infinity I vaguely remember. Can you have more or less infinity? If the entire real number set is infinity, would only positive reals be considered infinity/2? Of course not... But only positive reals is less than all reals, is it not?
Yes, you can. But not that way. There are as many positive rational numbers as there are all rational numbers; the cardinality of the sets is equivalent: they are both countable. The integers, natural numbers, rational numbers, prime numbers are all countable sets. Their infinities are the same "size".
The reals, however, are an uncountable set, and their infinity is "bigger" than the integers.
It is also the case that there are an infinite number of larger infinities. (The proof for this is particularly neat).
The authors of the Constitution were very wary of the word "treason" being thrown around, and so were highly specific in what treason is. Article III, Section 3:
Salon certainly hasn't levied war against the United States. I don't think a reasonable case can be made that releasing these documents in any way aid or comforts the US' enemies (except in the loosest possible sense that they might enjoy some schadenfreude).
Not to put too fine a point on it, but no.
Implementing web site captchas at the backbone level would be anything but trivial, for one thing. For another, adding some kind of login script overhead to every packet a backbone router handles would practically be a denial-of-service attack. I really don't think it's "trivial" for Level3, say, to replace all their networking equipment to implement login scripts for every web site that comes across their network.
Now, maybe when you say "backbones" you don't mean what people commonly refer to as the internet backbone, and you're thinking of implementing this closer to the edge. That makes implementation feasible, but it won't solve the problem. Once you start getting closer to the edge - close enough that the people trying to defend themselves have the ability to implement this solution - you'll be vulnerable again. Sure, your routers may not route the bad packets, but your routers have to look at the packets to determine they shouldn't be routed. That eats up bandwidth.
That kind of defeatist attitude doesn't help anyone. We're trying to mock the government, here, and then you show up with your "logic." You're such a buzzkill.
Er...what?
I run several SQL 2005 instances, one of them a 2-node cluster of SQL 2005 SP1 64-bit on Windows 2003 R2 SP2 64-bit, and I don't have this problem. SSIS works just fine. I don't use SQL Mail, so I can't speak to it, but unless SQL Server set up and is running WoW64 without telling me (which, I admit, isn't impossible), SSIS works just dandy in 64-bit land.
If it helps, I thought it worked pretty well on this end, too.
I don't think, though, that it could have been pulled off verbally.
Because this is, of course, limited to when Bush shows up, so it's a ringing indictment of his presidency.
The complete shutdown of 10 blocks worth of streets and buildings in downtown Milwaukee when Clinton came through, complete with SS men aiming MP5s at my car when I took the wrong (unmarked as off-limits) side street was, however, a testament to how much he cherished my rights as an American and a human being.
The problem is the flaws that are being attacked aren't necessarily resident on the machines being attacked - as you know, since you mention zombie computers.
But that doesn't make cyber attack bullshit. That's like saying that land invasions are a made up boogeyman because they depend on flaws like "not having a giant impregnable wall surrounding your country." DDoS attacks, in particular, are problematic. A given target has no way to prevent zombied machines from participating in the attack.
Besides which, a DDoS attack is just a bandwidth race. If my home PC were to be attacked like this, there's nothing I, personally, can do about it. My router won't pass any of the packets to my machine, but if there's 6 Mbps worth of incoming traffic, even if I drop it at the router, I still can't get much legit traffic through. I can call my provider, and see if they can stop it upstream, but then it's just a comparison of the bandwidth at the DSLAM to the bandwidth of the attacker. The only thing to hope for is that, somewhere up the chain, you can reach a node with enough bandwidth that the attacker can't overwhelm it. When you start getting up into backbone territory, this isn't a problem.
But - if we hypothesize for the moment an actual planned assault by a country - odds are pretty good that the US DoD, for example, has more bandwidth than Iran.
You and I clearly have different definitions of "easy."
Creating boards for Lode Runner was easy. Creating boards for Arkanoid II: Revenge of Doh was easy. Creating and texturing BSP trees for Doom was...something other than easy.
Not to be a complete cynic, here, but this can be translated as:
"Unpaid labor making product for you to sell can help your bottom line."
I don't think that's entirely revolutionary.
Nor is it a criticism, either of the sentiment or the fact of it. User-generated content is a fantastic way to give a game legs. I've played lots of it, dabbled in making it (not very well), and am all for games including the tools necessary to foster it. Especially on consoles, which are so far behind PCs in this regard they're not even running the same race. No one's getting ripped off, since the people who make the best content enjoy doing what they're doing, and they didn't need to buy some enterprise license of the engine to realize their vision.
But it's still not a terrifically insightful statement.
300 atmospheres is far too little pressure for the interesting forms of ice. To get the neat stuff, you need to be working with a couple hundred MPa, up to around 70 GPa. We're talking about 2000 atmospheres up to 7E5 atmospheres.
...as long as you weren't too close.
That being said, I have no idea what happens when you take the pressure off. But I imagine it would be pretty cool to see...
Sorry for the double post, but it occurs to me that I misinterpreted your question. If you mean, would the pressure prevent the ice from forming the specific crystal structure that makes ice less dense than water, the answer is yes. But then, so would the ambient temperature.
The pressure will not prevent the ice from forming a crystal structure (it will, in fact, cause the formation of such a structure), but that structure will be more dense than liquid water.
The latter is the answer to the question I thought you asked, the former is the answer to the question you actually asked. Sorry 'bout that.
No, it wouldn't.
Of the fourteen types of water ice, only one (Ice Ih, which is also the form that is commonly found on Earth, though Ice Ic can occasionally be found in the upper atmosphere) is less dense than the liquid form. The others form at various temperatures and pressures, and are, in that their density is greater than liquid water, more normal than "common" ice.
Yes, we can.
In fact, there are two types of ice that occur naturally on this planet, traditional hexagonal ice (Ice Ih) and ice with a cubic lattice (Ice Ic (I'll avoid the too-obvious "Ice Ic, baby" joke, here. You're welcome)).
According to that Wikipedia page, there are 14 different forms of ice which occur at varying temperatures and pressures. "Common" ice, Ice Ih, is, in fact, the odd one out in some respects - for example, it's the only one that is less dense than liquid water.
While amusing, your post is fairly inaccurate. "Hot ice" is a perfectly accurate description of the substance. Or at least, so says Wikipedia. And, if you're not down with the Wiki, arstechnica indicates that Nature also considers "hot ice" a legitimate term.
[
]
It's some whitespace you can use in your next post. No, don't thank me, I've got plenty.
Points taken. I was, indeed, using a less-stringent definition of "groupthink" than appears to be correct (in a perfect expression of slashdot culture, I didn't do any reading before posting ;)). Given the correct definition, I have to agree with you, in that slashdot doesn't exhibit those behaviors or have those causes. The one point that I might take some issue with is "[i]solation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis." Since the material that makes the front page is filtered by a (comparatively) small group of people, there is a certain degree of isolation inherent in the system. The posters' biases, whether intentionally or un-, will tend to prevent some sources from being represented.
I don't mean to portray this as a disadvantage; it is, in fact, the service the site provides. But it does make for a selection bias. Not enough to qualify as true isolation, certainly, but a contributing factor to the perception of "groupthink." The number of comments made about the site being CmdrTaco's blog, therefore he can post what he wants, tend to support this.
On the whole, though, I'll agree with your calling it "Slashdot culture." I'm not completely convinced, however, that the commonality of opinion on some subjects is entirely a matter of people having a like mindset tending to congregate. To some extent, I can't help believing that people's opinions are informed by what the Slashdot culture as a whole tends to believe. Certainly, my point of view on things has often been altered by what I've read other people on this site claiming.
It's difficult, of course, to separate how my opinions have changed in response to rational argument from how they may have changed as a result of conformity to a norm, so it's not a terribly compelling study.
This particular exchange, for example, is an instance of the former. My previous opinion on Slashdot groupthink has been revised as a result of a good argument on your part. Which new opinion, being apparently outside the norm for Slashdot, is an excellent supporting argument for your case.
I'll add "groupthink" to my list of terms that are often used improperly as cop outs and/or appeals to emotion (the term "FUD" is on that list, too).
Short answer: yes.
Longer answer as gleaned from the link above if people don't want to bother clicking: yes; the Z-machine at Sandia is able (at least) to form Ice VII.
Fascinating - and I mean that literally.
I don't own a hybrid, so I can't do my own research on this, but I'm going to have to start trying to collect information. If the regenerative braking is as small a piece of the total efficiency gain as you say (and I don't mean to imply I doubt you, I'd just like to collect as many data points as possible before coming to any conclusions), then I do have to wonder about the future of the hybrid as a high-efficiency vehicle.
By which I mean, if the primary gain is the efficiency of the ICE, then there may well be other ways to optimize that performance without incurring the significant mass penalty of the additional motor and battery pack. I realize constant velocity transmissions have been tricky at best, but progress in that field could just as easily yield the same efficiency gains as hybrids.
OTOH, I wonder if the reason regenerative braking isn't as big a deal as I thought comes from a fundamental limitation in the scheme, or from efficiency losses in the regenerating/storage/discharge mechanisms in place. If the latter, then it might still be a huge advantage if the efficiency of the system can be improved.
I'm suddenly very intrigued.
While your point about blaming "groupthink" when people disagree with you is well-taken, I don't think it's entirely accurate to say there's no such thing as slashdot groupthink.
I'm suddenly tempted to create two new accounts, and post equal numbers of pro-MS and anti-MS rants from each of them attached to the same articles. I'd be interested see how each account got modded. And, by "rants," I specifically mean posts heavy on appeals to emotion, and light on rational arguments. If one set got upmodded or downmodded significantly faster than the other, I'd think it would be a good indicator of groupthink. After all, a rant is a rant, and should ideally be recognized as such irrespective of the position being espoused.
I suspect that we'd see a difference in fairly short order, but I could (obviously) be wholly wrong about that.
My opinion/experience is that, while there are certainly a wide variety of opinions expressed on slashdot (one of the reasons I still come here, though obviously not for as long as you've been coming here), and while I would never claim that the community quashes them, it's also true that there's a distinct "right" way to think if you want to walk the road to slashdot stardom.
I wonder what kind of posting history/sample size I'd need to generate in order to be statistically significant...
if you don't plan on gaming, then it's got some really nice features
That's the part that really puzzles me. One of the biggest things preventing the uptake of F/LOSS amongst PC enthusiasts has always been games - for an awful lot of games, you've had to whip up some deep magic to make them run outside of Windows. Sometimes, you're SOL irrespective of your efforts. This has led to many more dual-boot setups than might otherwise be the case, and to many more people just not bothering than might otherwise be the case.
Virtually everything else you can do with Windows you can do with, say, Linux (specific hardware problems excepted).
So what does MS do? Release a shiny new OS that you can't really play games on.
I'm not particularly anti-MS, but even in my case, if I want a shiny new OS that I can't really play games on, I'll go with some flavor of Linux.