Eastern front also saw enormous numbers of casualties.
And in WW2 indeed fixed defences were still used, but that was also pretty much the end of that era. WW1 saw the first tanks; in WW2 they were a major part of the battles.
I know of the existence of numerous fixed positions, all built pre-WW2. They were used in WW2, but that's about it, it was the end of that defense tactic. The only really fixed positions the armed forces have nowadays are airfields. They're just too unwieldy to move around (except for the handful of aircraft carriers that are around). And of course there will always be bases with their own fortifications and observation posts.
Germany had it's Blitzkrieg tactic - made possible by their enhanced mobility. Problem of that tactic though, was that it mainly used relatively light armaments (heavy stuff was too immobile), and as soon as they were stopped they couldn't defend themselves well.
For pretty much all species, scarcity of resources (primarily food) is what keeps their populations in check. More of a food source, more of that species. Less of the food source, less of the species.
Humans are an exception in that they have so many means of increasing our resources. Without our technology, human populations would be far smaller. No need to have war for that. War may even be a rather inefficient way of trimming populations, unless you count the famines and related diseases caused by war, which often are far larger killers than the direct fighting.
WW1 and WW2 were probably the most deadly wars ever when it comes to the direct fighting efforts. Before WW1, fighting was done on horseback, running around, shooting each other with relatively inaccurate muskets and a lot of hand to hand combat. Think American civil war, or the conquering of Napoleon.
In WW1, the trench warfare started. Weapons got more powerful and have longer range and better accuracy, so you could kill a soldier from greater distance. Soldiers had to seriously search for cover, and started to dig in. A well defended trench is pretty much invincible, as the deadly fronts showed. They were stuck. Air combat was in it's infancy, so air raids to bomb an enemy trench was not possible yet.
At the end of WW1 the tank was invented, and finally trenches could be overcome. But not before millions of soldiers were killed on the battlefield.
WW2 saw the advent of air combat, and major bombing raids. Many cities were bombed, many people killed. Trenches were not built any more, tanks would just drive over them. Fixed positions quickly became obsolete, with aircraft just flying around them and also with the guns becoming more and more mobile themselves. No extreme slaughters as took place in the trenches took place, war had become mobile.
Nowadays warfare has evolved even more. Precision weapons can take out specific targets, the wholesale killing of civilian populations is for most countries a no-no, especially as they have the means of taking out specific targets without the need of causing massive collateral damage. Just compare the civilian death rates in Iraq or Afghanistan with those in Europe during the fighting episodes of WW2. While any death is one too many, it's far less than it used to be. Also the number of military deaths is now measured in the thousands, rather than in the millions.
Armies in most countries have also been reduced in size significantly with all the technological advantages. Just a few countries maintain armies with massive numbers of soldiers. And that is yet another reason why, if there would be a war, the number of soldiers killed will be relatively small.
US is waging war with states they don't care about, economically: Afghanistan, Iraq. They would happily go after North Korea and most North African states are free game too. They're not getting anything vital out of there.
China is another matter. Imagine the US waging war against China: that would lead to total destruction. First all consumers would complain that they would not be able to buy clothes, DVD players, and many other manufactured goods, as the supply from China would stop and the US doesn't have their own manufacturing anymore. Soon after the US military would come to a grinding halt due to the lack of supply of spare parts for their weapons systems, parts that are also more and more made in China.
The US is at least as dependent on Chinese manufacturers as the Chinese manufacturers are dependent on US buyers. They can't survive without one another. China may even have the best chance of survival in such a war scenario, because at least they can produce the goods they need themselves...
Indeed. If they must do it in batches, then to it randomly. But why then all this effort in this "game"? Lotteries are on the order fo the day in most parts of the world, and we know perfectly well how they are performed and audited to be fair and impartial. Just make it a simple lottery, and get over it.
Child abuse (sexual or violent or otherwise) is a crime, and rightfully so.
Possessing recordings of a crime (images, video, whatever), is usually not a crime (though I'm not so sure about those "snuff movies" or whatever they're called where people are actually killed in the process of making them).
Creating or owning drawings of a crime that never took place for real, should not be a crime. That'd fall under freedom of speech (with possible limits where specific individuals or groups are targeted).
What you see in movie theatres are often rather violent movies (especially coming out of Hollywood): people being murdered is something you very commonly see. Now I assume those people don't actually die, yet they do their best to make it look as if they really die. With lots of blood and so. A crime, but the recording of it is no problem at all.
Similar for erotic movies. A bit less accepted by many people, the porn industry is thriving. And that also includes movies depicting rape and possibly other crimes. This again is also considered totally legal. Now these people are not actually being raped as in they take part in the scene consensually (consent given in return for a big enough cheque), yet again the movie makers do their best to make it look like the actual crime is taking place.
In case of porn involving minors receiving consent is not possible, so the act is illegal, and the people involved should be tracked down and prosecuted. The evidence of the crime is there: the movie, presumably shot in high resolution, good quality; not grainy surveillance camera stuff.
It'd be rather more effective for police to try to track down where this move was shot, who was involved shooting it, and prosecute those people. This should be relatively easy with the top-notch video evidence that is available of the crime.
In most places in the US psychiatrists are REQUIRED by law to report any people that come to them for help with pedophilia,
It is really sad to hear that.
In case of a psychiatrist, they should have a confidentiality requirement like e.g. medical staff and clergymen have too: whatever you say to those people (when in function at least) they must keep confidential, even a judge can not overrule that. For that is what allows them to fulfil their duties, the person seeking help must be sure that what he says in the psychiatrist's clinic stays in the clinic.
Of course there is always the ethical issue that when you learn about a crime someone committed, should you report it or not. And I'm glad that there is still the confidentiality, which tells these people that they can not, and are not expected to, reveal criminals.
Which is why the Shanghai Stock Exchange web site got censored by the mainland censors for being 64.89 points down. It opening at 2346.98 points (date reversed; and it was the 23rd year since the massacre) was interesting as well.
You won't be able to do the hundreds trillion password guesses a second TFA suggests, if those guesses involve calculationg a hash as well. Unless you have access to Google's entire server farm (but if you do, there are more useful things to do with that). Sure you can go faster than having to ask a remote server every time; still it's going to slow you down seriously.
How about those "security questions" from a.o. Hotmail? That's far worse.
A few years ago it was Sarah Palin. Recently it was Mitt Romney. If so high-profile targets are so easy to hack, that doesn't bode well for the many low-profile targets out there.
The problem about those hash functions is that you're never going to get the password guess rate as suggested by the article on modern hardware. After all for every single password the hash has to be calculated.
You can create a dictionary for that of course, and that way you will have many many passwords in a very short time. But add a little randomness to your password and very good chance you're out of the dictionary table and that your password is practically unguessable.
Break into a server, get a million usernames+hashes, and seconds later you have done your dictionary attack and have maybe 40% of the passwords in your hands. I'd say that for most purposes of the attacker that's good enough (assuming they're not targeting a specific account).
As a scientist you must be sceptical about both techniques if a big difference is found. Try and find evidence both for and against each technique, and see which one is better.
In this situation, you start with method 1, which at the time is considered a good method. Then you come with method 2, and find wildly different results. Then you know that one of them must be wrong - the question being which one. Having four different methods, three giving similar results and one giving a very different result, is a way of proving that one is wrong.
The thing about the dino case is that the old, wrong technique was proven wrong long time already, and is still hailed in the summary as the previous, still accepted technique. Which is wrong.
Part of hte complaint is probably that the men don't stare at their face or look them in the eyes, but look a little lower. You know, roughly the level where they're holding the product they're trying to sell.
Wages in Taiwan are generally much lower than wages in the US. This is about models on a fair in Taiwan. US$100 a day is a pretty good pay for an unskilled job there.
The huge difference in results from this technique and older estimates made me sceptical already.
If one method comes to say 80 tons, and another to say 70 tons, then I say sure, both sound reasonable, and not too far away. But if the other method comes to 23 tons, then I start to wonder what is wrong. One of the methods is wrong for sure, just the question is which one.
Interestingly the article you link to says that the weight of this particular dino was previously estimated at just over 23 tons. Almost exactly what the new method predicts. The 80 ton weight is suggested to be an old figure, and already long since relegated to the history books. The value in the new method is not as much in that the dinos get a lighter weight, it's that it confirms current weight estimates, and will allow for much faster and cheaper measurements on other dino skeletons.
So while your comment is technically correct, it's also slashdot-style suggestive into suggesting that the new technique is wrong, while in fact the new technique confirms the consensus weight of just over 23 tons for the animal. And that would also suggest that current ecosystem calculations are already done with the lighter weight - making the summary even more sensationalist.
I doubt a footprint can give any useful measure of the weight of the animal that made it.
Too many variables. Walking speed and method will influence it, as it affects the impact between foot and soil and the time the foot is pushing down on the soil. Exact original soil content (water content and particle size). How deep the soft layer of soil really was.
> whats wrong with the real small claims court? Real small claims court doesn't spend much time on investigating claims. To clear cases quickly the judge quickly weighs up sides and makes a snap decision.
Considering the fees charged by judge.me, and the description on their web site, they are no different than a small claims court in that respect.
ANY pose that you keep for long time is bad for you. Your body is made to move, to change position frequently.
To break the sitting posture, walking a few steps now and then is enough. Have your printer a few steps away making you get up to pick up a print-out is a great way to accomplish that.
Sitting all the time is bad. Standing all the time is bad. Lying all the time is bad. Especially when it's in the same pose. Having a good sitting/walking/standing posture helps a lot but it's no replacement for changing position every now and then. Ask any supermarket cashier that has to stand all day long on how demanding and tiring that is. Police constables have the advantage that they can walk around more, giving them more movement.
I have no idea how he can type accurately when walking. When typing on my phone it barely works, and there the keyboard moves with my hands - in that set-up the keyboard is fixed, making movement worse.
I would expect the peaceful/civilian market for such a system to be far greater than the military market. Also for more permanent installations. Plenty of communities that have a problem getting enough potable water. And it could have use in shipping industry too, saving the vessels to carry (and keep fresh) large amounts of water for long periods of time.
This device has HDMI output, but now I've heard too often here on/. how HDMI is seriously DRM-encumbered.
There is a lot of protected content out there, and there are too many horror stories how HDMI devices don't want to talk to each other or give degraded video etc. My TV doesn't have HDMI (it's too old); a new one probably will. But I'm really worried about all these stupid restrictions being put on the system. And as such am not really eager to start using HDMI.
Now a device like this is likely not to have much support for those content flags and whatnot: how does this affect the final performance of HDMI? Will there be problems when trying to play video from this Raspberry Pi?
I've myself been in the line of sight of a movie camera once or twice, just by walking around the streets. No model release or anything.
What I was more irritated about was that once I found a photo of myself in a magazine, where my son and I are the subject of the photo. I didn't even know that photo was taken, and of course my name wasn't there either. They should at least have notified me photos were being taken (and I'd like to have a digital copy of it).
Slashdot Mirror
Eastern front also saw enormous numbers of casualties.
And in WW2 indeed fixed defences were still used, but that was also pretty much the end of that era. WW1 saw the first tanks; in WW2 they were a major part of the battles.
I know of the existence of numerous fixed positions, all built pre-WW2. They were used in WW2, but that's about it, it was the end of that defense tactic. The only really fixed positions the armed forces have nowadays are airfields. They're just too unwieldy to move around (except for the handful of aircraft carriers that are around). And of course there will always be bases with their own fortifications and observation posts.
Germany had it's Blitzkrieg tactic - made possible by their enhanced mobility. Problem of that tactic though, was that it mainly used relatively light armaments (heavy stuff was too immobile), and as soon as they were stopped they couldn't defend themselves well.
For pretty much all species, scarcity of resources (primarily food) is what keeps their populations in check. More of a food source, more of that species. Less of the food source, less of the species.
Humans are an exception in that they have so many means of increasing our resources. Without our technology, human populations would be far smaller. No need to have war for that. War may even be a rather inefficient way of trimming populations, unless you count the famines and related diseases caused by war, which often are far larger killers than the direct fighting.
WW1 and WW2 were probably the most deadly wars ever when it comes to the direct fighting efforts. Before WW1, fighting was done on horseback, running around, shooting each other with relatively inaccurate muskets and a lot of hand to hand combat. Think American civil war, or the conquering of Napoleon.
In WW1, the trench warfare started. Weapons got more powerful and have longer range and better accuracy, so you could kill a soldier from greater distance. Soldiers had to seriously search for cover, and started to dig in. A well defended trench is pretty much invincible, as the deadly fronts showed. They were stuck. Air combat was in it's infancy, so air raids to bomb an enemy trench was not possible yet.
At the end of WW1 the tank was invented, and finally trenches could be overcome. But not before millions of soldiers were killed on the battlefield.
WW2 saw the advent of air combat, and major bombing raids. Many cities were bombed, many people killed. Trenches were not built any more, tanks would just drive over them. Fixed positions quickly became obsolete, with aircraft just flying around them and also with the guns becoming more and more mobile themselves. No extreme slaughters as took place in the trenches took place, war had become mobile.
Nowadays warfare has evolved even more. Precision weapons can take out specific targets, the wholesale killing of civilian populations is for most countries a no-no, especially as they have the means of taking out specific targets without the need of causing massive collateral damage. Just compare the civilian death rates in Iraq or Afghanistan with those in Europe during the fighting episodes of WW2. While any death is one too many, it's far less than it used to be. Also the number of military deaths is now measured in the thousands, rather than in the millions.
Armies in most countries have also been reduced in size significantly with all the technological advantages. Just a few countries maintain armies with massive numbers of soldiers. And that is yet another reason why, if there would be a war, the number of soldiers killed will be relatively small.
Even worse.
Anyway afaik a psychiatrist is normally not allowed to report on anything a patient tells him. Even if that is about crime committed.
Sorry, doesn't work like that anymore.
US is waging war with states they don't care about, economically: Afghanistan, Iraq. They would happily go after North Korea and most North African states are free game too. They're not getting anything vital out of there.
China is another matter. Imagine the US waging war against China: that would lead to total destruction. First all consumers would complain that they would not be able to buy clothes, DVD players, and many other manufactured goods, as the supply from China would stop and the US doesn't have their own manufacturing anymore. Soon after the US military would come to a grinding halt due to the lack of supply of spare parts for their weapons systems, parts that are also more and more made in China.
The US is at least as dependent on Chinese manufacturers as the Chinese manufacturers are dependent on US buyers. They can't survive without one another. China may even have the best chance of survival in such a war scenario, because at least they can produce the goods they need themselves...
Indeed. If they must do it in batches, then to it randomly. But why then all this effort in this "game"? Lotteries are on the order fo the day in most parts of the world, and we know perfectly well how they are performed and audited to be fair and impartial. Just make it a simple lottery, and get over it.
As if any human will do this! Much easier (and more accurate) to just build a small script to "press" that button for you!
And that is indeed/ totally ridiculous.
Child abuse (sexual or violent or otherwise) is a crime, and rightfully so.
Possessing recordings of a crime (images, video, whatever), is usually not a crime (though I'm not so sure about those "snuff movies" or whatever they're called where people are actually killed in the process of making them).
Creating or owning drawings of a crime that never took place for real, should not be a crime. That'd fall under freedom of speech (with possible limits where specific individuals or groups are targeted).
What you see in movie theatres are often rather violent movies (especially coming out of Hollywood): people being murdered is something you very commonly see. Now I assume those people don't actually die, yet they do their best to make it look as if they really die. With lots of blood and so. A crime, but the recording of it is no problem at all.
Similar for erotic movies. A bit less accepted by many people, the porn industry is thriving. And that also includes movies depicting rape and possibly other crimes. This again is also considered totally legal. Now these people are not actually being raped as in they take part in the scene consensually (consent given in return for a big enough cheque), yet again the movie makers do their best to make it look like the actual crime is taking place.
In case of porn involving minors receiving consent is not possible, so the act is illegal, and the people involved should be tracked down and prosecuted. The evidence of the crime is there: the movie, presumably shot in high resolution, good quality; not grainy surveillance camera stuff.
It'd be rather more effective for police to try to track down where this move was shot, who was involved shooting it, and prosecute those people. This should be relatively easy with the top-notch video evidence that is available of the crime.
In most places in the US psychiatrists are REQUIRED by law to report any people that come to them for help with pedophilia,
It is really sad to hear that.
In case of a psychiatrist, they should have a confidentiality requirement like e.g. medical staff and clergymen have too: whatever you say to those people (when in function at least) they must keep confidential, even a judge can not overrule that. For that is what allows them to fulfil their duties, the person seeking help must be sure that what he says in the psychiatrist's clinic stays in the clinic.
Of course there is always the ethical issue that when you learn about a crime someone committed, should you report it or not. And I'm glad that there is still the confidentiality, which tells these people that they can not, and are not expected to, reveal criminals.
That way is also widely used in mainland.
Which is why the Shanghai Stock Exchange web site got censored by the mainland censors for being 64.89 points down. It opening at 2346.98 points (date reversed; and it was the 23rd year since the massacre) was interesting as well.
You won't be able to do the hundreds trillion password guesses a second TFA suggests, if those guesses involve calculationg a hash as well. Unless you have access to Google's entire server farm (but if you do, there are more useful things to do with that). Sure you can go faster than having to ask a remote server every time; still it's going to slow you down seriously.
How about those "security questions" from a.o. Hotmail? That's far worse.
A few years ago it was Sarah Palin. Recently it was Mitt Romney. If so high-profile targets are so easy to hack, that doesn't bode well for the many low-profile targets out there.
The problem about those hash functions is that you're never going to get the password guess rate as suggested by the article on modern hardware. After all for every single password the hash has to be calculated.
You can create a dictionary for that of course, and that way you will have many many passwords in a very short time. But add a little randomness to your password and very good chance you're out of the dictionary table and that your password is practically unguessable.
Break into a server, get a million usernames+hashes, and seconds later you have done your dictionary attack and have maybe 40% of the passwords in your hands. I'd say that for most purposes of the attacker that's good enough (assuming they're not targeting a specific account).
As a scientist you must be sceptical about both techniques if a big difference is found. Try and find evidence both for and against each technique, and see which one is better.
In this situation, you start with method 1, which at the time is considered a good method. Then you come with method 2, and find wildly different results. Then you know that one of them must be wrong - the question being which one. Having four different methods, three giving similar results and one giving a very different result, is a way of proving that one is wrong.
The thing about the dino case is that the old, wrong technique was proven wrong long time already, and is still hailed in the summary as the previous, still accepted technique. Which is wrong.
Part of hte complaint is probably that the men don't stare at their face or look them in the eyes, but look a little lower. You know, roughly the level where they're holding the product they're trying to sell.
Wages in Taiwan are generally much lower than wages in the US. This is about models on a fair in Taiwan. US$100 a day is a pretty good pay for an unskilled job there.
The huge difference in results from this technique and older estimates made me sceptical already.
If one method comes to say 80 tons, and another to say 70 tons, then I say sure, both sound reasonable, and not too far away. But if the other method comes to 23 tons, then I start to wonder what is wrong. One of the methods is wrong for sure, just the question is which one.
Interestingly the article you link to says that the weight of this particular dino was previously estimated at just over 23 tons. Almost exactly what the new method predicts. The 80 ton weight is suggested to be an old figure, and already long since relegated to the history books. The value in the new method is not as much in that the dinos get a lighter weight, it's that it confirms current weight estimates, and will allow for much faster and cheaper measurements on other dino skeletons.
So while your comment is technically correct, it's also slashdot-style suggestive into suggesting that the new technique is wrong, while in fact the new technique confirms the consensus weight of just over 23 tons for the animal. And that would also suggest that current ecosystem calculations are already done with the lighter weight - making the summary even more sensationalist.
I doubt a footprint can give any useful measure of the weight of the animal that made it.
Too many variables. Walking speed and method will influence it, as it affects the impact between foot and soil and the time the foot is pushing down on the soil. Exact original soil content (water content and particle size). How deep the soft layer of soil really was.
> whats wrong with the real small claims court?
Real small claims court doesn't spend much time on investigating claims. To clear cases quickly the judge quickly weighs up sides and makes a snap decision.
Considering the fees charged by judge.me, and the description on their web site, they are no different than a small claims court in that respect.
ANY pose that you keep for long time is bad for you. Your body is made to move, to change position frequently.
To break the sitting posture, walking a few steps now and then is enough. Have your printer a few steps away making you get up to pick up a print-out is a great way to accomplish that.
Sitting all the time is bad. Standing all the time is bad. Lying all the time is bad. Especially when it's in the same pose. Having a good sitting/walking/standing posture helps a lot but it's no replacement for changing position every now and then. Ask any supermarket cashier that has to stand all day long on how demanding and tiring that is. Police constables have the advantage that they can walk around more, giving them more movement.
I have no idea how he can type accurately when walking. When typing on my phone it barely works, and there the keyboard moves with my hands - in that set-up the keyboard is fixed, making movement worse.
I would expect the peaceful/civilian market for such a system to be far greater than the military market. Also for more permanent installations. Plenty of communities that have a problem getting enough potable water. And it could have use in shipping industry too, saving the vessels to carry (and keep fresh) large amounts of water for long periods of time.
Do you hate economic growth? The rich killing the poor is what had created most of the developed nations of the world.
At the very least doing so will increase the average richness of the people!
Arduino doesn't fit the bill for you? Comes with all kinds of extension boards, too.
This device has HDMI output, but now I've heard too often here on /. how HDMI is seriously DRM-encumbered.
There is a lot of protected content out there, and there are too many horror stories how HDMI devices don't want to talk to each other or give degraded video etc. My TV doesn't have HDMI (it's too old); a new one probably will. But I'm really worried about all these stupid restrictions being put on the system. And as such am not really eager to start using HDMI.
Now a device like this is likely not to have much support for those content flags and whatnot: how does this affect the final performance of HDMI? Will there be problems when trying to play video from this Raspberry Pi?
I've myself been in the line of sight of a movie camera once or twice, just by walking around the streets. No model release or anything.
What I was more irritated about was that once I found a photo of myself in a magazine, where my son and I are the subject of the photo. I didn't even know that photo was taken, and of course my name wasn't there either. They should at least have notified me photos were being taken (and I'd like to have a digital copy of it).