Technically I could do this, but it's a distraction. If I can't see the side of my own car, then when I look in the mirror I have no frame-of-reference for what I'm looking at. Yes, I guess I can deal with this, but it makes me very unsure while driving. I suspect a great many people are like me in this regard - it's very distracting not to be able to see the side of the car, since you have no real idea what you're looking at or where.
And as you say - since what you see changes based on how you position your head, having a "floating" frame of reference in the mirror means you can never be entirely sure you're see all the important spots.
The Prius camera is amazing. You can get within an inch or two of something with the cars bumper because you have such a great view of exactly where you are. I have an older model Prius before it was an option, though apparently Toyota did actually produce the part for it but only sold it in Japan - I've been meaning to try and import it.
You realize that (1) like the entire telecommunications infrastructure is digital from the exchange onwards right? It's all a-law or -law from that point on. (2) Your perception of VOIP is largely based on the unreliable and slow upload speeds of ADSL2 connections (which get contested by all your other internet access) and (3) how many types of disaster do you think are actually prevented by the telephone system's remote power requirement, given that it's not actually guaranteed nor particularly reliable for the vast number of cases it may happen: around Sydney if a storm knocks out the power it's also going to have taken down the phone lines.
I got half-way through the correct spelling then suddenly realized I wasn't entirely sure if it was just pronounced differently or spelt differently too.
Operator overloading is to address the ambiguity of having by-value and by-reference passing of objects being possible via different semantics in the language.
If I have a pointer and write: ObjType* pObjRef = then it's pretty obvious I have an object reference.
But but what does ObjType Obj2 = Obj1; actually mean?
C++ defines this type of transaction as always being a copy operation. But an object is a complex datatype - doing a straight copy of all it's memory doesn't necessarily give me sensible behavior. So you need operator overloading to let you enforce sensible behavior.
That you can also use it to create syntactic sugar or completely illogical behavior doesn't make it bad though. And absent a garbage collector, I'm not sure it actually makes sense to do what C# does and try and treat all object variables as references (in that when would you deallocate things?)
The problem with science though is that you're usually doing something brand new. The Michaelson-Mauley experiment failed to detect the aether, but in the process revealed something far more fundamental.
There isn't really a broad-ranging way you could teach about "science failures" to people - although I promise you there's a lot of grad. students who are just dying to publish their null results and failures (I'm one of them).
Because I find that system inferior to Zotero (which is pretty much the endgame IMO) - I can simply browse to the reference I want online, push one button and have it fully downloaded and synced to my system, with a useful interface for sorting and organizing.
My database has hundreds of references - will probably have thousands by the time I'm done, and I don't necessarily know which ones will be appropriately relevant when I'm actually writing up.
Word may not implement the necessary functionality itself, but neither does anyone else really and LaTeX has a hell of a learning curve still.
I have gone to some effort during my Ph. D to educate people on Word's cross-referencing power.
The sad thing is, even lecturer's and academics are frequently unaware of it and go on to teach poor, manual techniques to students.
Regarding Lyx: I want to love LaTeX, I really do, but when I first started up Lyx I discovered that subscripts and superscripts were not in fact a standardized upon feature (that's since changed - still though). But looking down the barrel of a chemistry thesis, that was an immediate deal-breaker.
The GPS is used to synchronize the remote clocks. In the case of this experiment the times of flight were well in excess of 1 nanosecond, and the experiments were being synchronized against signals from the same GPS satellite. So it's more then suitable.
Without rocketry considerations (i.e. we can supply more or less infinite energy to the ascension vehicle) it would be feasible to build a highly protected ascent vehicle for living humans.
You do realize the dielectric constant of vacuum vs air is pretty much exactly the same? A handy chart.
More importantly, that web site you linked to notes that thrust in a vacuum is greatly reduced. Gee, I wonder why that could be - could it be because it's not actually a perfect vacuum, and thus there's still some medium for lifter to accelerate against?
Drop that number to 500 - which is the one of the higher "monkey sphere" amounts.
They would probably be wonderfully efficient, though I do worry about building "tribe-sized" companies since a good deal of modern problems stem from people lazily using the tribe-based mentality rather then critical reasoning.
As I understand it there's actually quite a few people out there who have taken massive damage to their brain tissue yet can still function more or less normally. Neuroplasticity is a hell of a thing.
Here's a better analogy: what you are advocating is imprisoning the guy who tells you that you've left your windows and doors unlocked, and he can see it would be easy for someone to take your TV because it's visible through them.
There is a difference between someone ringing on your doorbell to tell you a windows's open, and someone climbing in through it and saying "boo" to you in bed.
Which is why, immediately after I wrote that, I put "and that's where the analogy ends". Because it is. Because it's entirely unlike what you wrote and it should be obvious why.
And yes, in many ways the digital world is different, but in many ways its similar - an open window does not give a random passer by the right to "test my homes security" by climbing in and having a look around. Such a person would not be considered a "white hat", just as this bloke is not a "white hat" - I can hire people to test my physical security, just as I can hire people to test my online security, the difference between those people and this bloke is that they would have my explicit permission.
Oh look, a physical security analogy in the same sentence as you admit physical and digital security are different.
Here's a better analogy: what you are advocating is imprisoning the guy who tells you that you've left your windows and doors unlocked, and he can see it would be easy for someone to take your TV because it's visible through them.
And that's where the analogy ends because unlike physical security, hacking a computer system does not destroy information, or cause property damage. It is also a proof-by-example world because it does not obey classic physical reality: you can't "obviously see" things as problems. In the simplest case you can't "know" altering the URL to a different user ID number will grant unauthorized access until it's tried.
It becomes obvious after someone points it out to you?
The whole idiocy here is that Option B in this scenario is: Russian hacker's download everyone's personal data, sell to marketing companies, use to engage in mass identity theft, whatever.
The digital world is different to the physical world because it's always open and it is possible to almost completely erase the evidence of a visit. There's also no particular signs of attempted access, nor any real options if someone is attempting unauthorized access.
It must be treated as such, differently, and part of that is not stomping on white-hat hackers.
If I interpret the Judge the way you and many other post have and claim he's being punished for potential damage and apply it to other laws, I see it's common practice. For example: DUI is illegal almost everywhere because of the clear potential for damage, it doesn't matter if your particular DUI incident didn't cause any damage or disturbance, we're still locking you up for DUI.
This is a stupid analogy. A DUI is prosecuted and sentenced based on a hazardous situation a person is believed to have knowingly created. White-hat hacker's aren't knowingly creating a hazardous situation, and were we to apply your logic, then Facebook should be punished for having holes in it's security that allow it to be compromised.
What a world it would be if that were how we dealt with big business and data security.
Internet security tends to be equivalent to "jiggling on the lock of a secure door and finding it was actually open".
I think most other metaphors fall apart, because its conceivable you did real physical damage to exploit them.
Whereas the whole point of the internet is that it's always on, and and always open - and doesn't have any specific way to determine whether or not someone has entered a place. It is entirely unlike the real world, and that's why these things should be treated differently.
Actually it's because it's the only realistic way to produce vaccines in the quantities required for general dissemination.
Eggs are effective and cheap, and available. Even if something else was theoretically as cheap on scale up, the reality is that we have billions of chickens and infrastructure for creating them today. As I understand it it was a huge breakthrough when the egg-production method was discovered since it meant it was very simple to roll out new vaccines.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically I could do this, but it's a distraction. If I can't see the side of my own car, then when I look in the mirror I have no frame-of-reference for what I'm looking at. Yes, I guess I can deal with this, but it makes me very unsure while driving. I suspect a great many people are like me in this regard - it's very distracting not to be able to see the side of the car, since you have no real idea what you're looking at or where.
And as you say - since what you see changes based on how you position your head, having a "floating" frame of reference in the mirror means you can never be entirely sure you're see all the important spots.
This type of logic worked out pretty well for Ford too.
The Prius camera is amazing. You can get within an inch or two of something with the cars bumper because you have such a great view of exactly where you are. I have an older model Prius before it was an option, though apparently Toyota did actually produce the part for it but only sold it in Japan - I've been meaning to try and import it.
Actually it's better then that - the fiber-equipment boxes can also emulate an ADSL2 line apparently.
You realize that (1) like the entire telecommunications infrastructure is digital from the exchange onwards right? It's all a-law or -law from that point on. (2) Your perception of VOIP is largely based on the unreliable and slow upload speeds of ADSL2 connections (which get contested by all your other internet access) and (3) how many types of disaster do you think are actually prevented by the telephone system's remote power requirement, given that it's not actually guaranteed nor particularly reliable for the vast number of cases it may happen: around Sydney if a storm knocks out the power it's also going to have taken down the phone lines.
I got half-way through the correct spelling then suddenly realized I wasn't entirely sure if it was just pronounced differently or spelt differently too.
Presumably they stumbled across the assembly facility for the secret robot army the UK is going to use reconquer the dissident colonies.
Huh, ok, did not know I couldn't use the ampersand in a post.
Operator overloading is to address the ambiguity of having by-value and by-reference passing of objects being possible via different semantics in the language.
If I have a pointer and write:
ObjType* pObjRef =
then it's pretty obvious I have an object reference.
But but what does
ObjType Obj2 = Obj1;
actually mean?
C++ defines this type of transaction as always being a copy operation. But an object is a complex datatype - doing a straight copy of all it's memory doesn't necessarily give me sensible behavior. So you need operator overloading to let you enforce sensible behavior.
That you can also use it to create syntactic sugar or completely illogical behavior doesn't make it bad though. And absent a garbage collector, I'm not sure it actually makes sense to do what C# does and try and treat all object variables as references (in that when would you deallocate things?)
The problem with science though is that you're usually doing something brand new. The Michaelson-Mauley experiment failed to detect the aether, but in the process revealed something far more fundamental.
There isn't really a broad-ranging way you could teach about "science failures" to people - although I promise you there's a lot of grad. students who are just dying to publish their null results and failures (I'm one of them).
Because I find that system inferior to Zotero (which is pretty much the endgame IMO) - I can simply browse to the reference I want online, push one button and have it fully downloaded and synced to my system, with a useful interface for sorting and organizing.
My database has hundreds of references - will probably have thousands by the time I'm done, and I don't necessarily know which ones will be appropriately relevant when I'm actually writing up.
Word may not implement the necessary functionality itself, but neither does anyone else really and LaTeX has a hell of a learning curve still.
I have gone to some effort during my Ph. D to educate people on Word's cross-referencing power.
The sad thing is, even lecturer's and academics are frequently unaware of it and go on to teach poor, manual techniques to students.
Regarding Lyx: I want to love LaTeX, I really do, but when I first started up Lyx I discovered that subscripts and superscripts were not in fact a standardized upon feature (that's since changed - still though). But looking down the barrel of a chemistry thesis, that was an immediate deal-breaker.
The GPS is used to synchronize the remote clocks. In the case of this experiment the times of flight were well in excess of 1 nanosecond, and the experiments were being synchronized against signals from the same GPS satellite. So it's more then suitable.
It feels like there's a lesson here about single-use equipment, but I'm not really sure if there's any corrective action one could take.
"Criminals" aren't attempting anything.
Random kids who wonder about signal jamming are looking up the plans online and testing out just how easy it is to do.
Without rocketry considerations (i.e. we can supply more or less infinite energy to the ascension vehicle) it would be feasible to build a highly protected ascent vehicle for living humans.
You do realize the dielectric constant of vacuum vs air is pretty much exactly the same? A handy chart.
More importantly, that web site you linked to notes that thrust in a vacuum is greatly reduced. Gee, I wonder why that could be - could it be because it's not actually a perfect vacuum, and thus there's still some medium for lifter to accelerate against?
Drop that number to 500 - which is the one of the higher "monkey sphere" amounts.
They would probably be wonderfully efficient, though I do worry about building "tribe-sized" companies since a good deal of modern problems stem from people lazily using the tribe-based mentality rather then critical reasoning.
As I understand it there's actually quite a few people out there who have taken massive damage to their brain tissue yet can still function more or less normally. Neuroplasticity is a hell of a thing.
Here's a better analogy: what you are advocating is imprisoning the guy who tells you that you've left your windows and doors unlocked, and he can see it would be easy for someone to take your TV because it's visible through them.
There is a difference between someone ringing on your doorbell to tell you a windows's open, and someone climbing in through it and saying "boo" to you in bed.
Which is why, immediately after I wrote that, I put "and that's where the analogy ends". Because it is. Because it's entirely unlike what you wrote and it should be obvious why.
And yes, in many ways the digital world is different, but in many ways its similar - an open window does not give a random passer by the right to "test my homes security" by climbing in and having a look around. Such a person would not be considered a "white hat", just as this bloke is not a "white hat" - I can hire people to test my physical security, just as I can hire people to test my online security, the difference between those people and this bloke is that they would have my explicit permission.
Oh look, a physical security analogy in the same sentence as you admit physical and digital security are different.
Here's a better analogy: what you are advocating is imprisoning the guy who tells you that you've left your windows and doors unlocked, and he can see it would be easy for someone to take your TV because it's visible through them.
And that's where the analogy ends because unlike physical security, hacking a computer system does not destroy information, or cause property damage. It is also a proof-by-example world because it does not obey classic physical reality: you can't "obviously see" things as problems. In the simplest case you can't "know" altering the URL to a different user ID number will grant unauthorized access until it's tried.
It becomes obvious after someone points it out to you?
The whole idiocy here is that Option B in this scenario is: Russian hacker's download everyone's personal data, sell to marketing companies, use to engage in mass identity theft, whatever.
The digital world is different to the physical world because it's always open and it is possible to almost completely erase the evidence of a visit. There's also no particular signs of attempted access, nor any real options if someone is attempting unauthorized access.
It must be treated as such, differently, and part of that is not stomping on white-hat hackers.
If I interpret the Judge the way you and many other post have and claim he's being punished for potential damage and apply it to other laws, I see it's common practice. For example: DUI is illegal almost everywhere because of the clear potential for damage, it doesn't matter if your particular DUI incident didn't cause any damage or disturbance, we're still locking you up for DUI.
This is a stupid analogy. A DUI is prosecuted and sentenced based on a hazardous situation a person is believed to have knowingly created. White-hat hacker's aren't knowingly creating a hazardous situation, and were we to apply your logic, then Facebook should be punished for having holes in it's security that allow it to be compromised.
What a world it would be if that were how we dealt with big business and data security.
Internet security tends to be equivalent to "jiggling on the lock of a secure door and finding it was actually open".
I think most other metaphors fall apart, because its conceivable you did real physical damage to exploit them.
Whereas the whole point of the internet is that it's always on, and and always open - and doesn't have any specific way to determine whether or not someone has entered a place. It is entirely unlike the real world, and that's why these things should be treated differently.
Actually it's because it's the only realistic way to produce vaccines in the quantities required for general dissemination.
Eggs are effective and cheap, and available. Even if something else was theoretically as cheap on scale up, the reality is that we have billions of chickens and infrastructure for creating them today. As I understand it it was a huge breakthrough when the egg-production method was discovered since it meant it was very simple to roll out new vaccines.