A handy note for those that don't know, Under X11 in addition to the rgb and bgr subpixel orderings, you can chose vrgb and vgbr vertical orientations to allow subpixel rendering (ClearType) for odd or rotated lcd screens.
So those limited robotic probes can communicate of course. Not having to invent a whole new protocol and being able to re-use existing sattelites for retransmission is a big win for future missions.
There are already issues in sports with people with prosthetic parts being "too good" at certain tasks. I imagine going forward this will become more and more of an issue. The paralympic games may become where all the action is at in the future.
Re:if groklaw made an impact on the court cases...
on
Grokking SCO's Demise
·
· Score: 1
not necessarily, I am sure thee SCO lawyers were reading groklaw too. The research done by the groklaw readers may have preemptively shut down several attacks on linux the lawyers had planned.
The problem is that they don't know how much of that idle load is due to the CPU. You don't know whether that 4 watt difference is due to an efficient high power mode, or a really inefficient low power mode.
for instance, the nano might be 1 watt unloaded and 19 watts fully loaded, while the atom might be 20 watts unloaded and 24 watts loaded. This is clearly not the case, but would be consistent with the results.
This is actually true. Potential energy is mass. This means that (endothermic) chemical bonds actually decrease the mass relative to the components of the bond. However much energy it takes to break that bond is the amount of mass difference. This is analogous to the way nuclear bombs work, if you count the neutrons/protons/electrons after a nuclear decay, you end up with the same number as are in the original atom. but a whole lot of energy was released. that energy is the energy of the nuclear force that was holding the nucleus together. since those forces contain so much more energy than the chemical bonding forces, more mass is lost, more energy is produced.
Presumably different shapes will have different numbers of chemical bonds. i.e. different masses.
That is exactly precisely what they are trying to do.
They are not making a physical standard. They are attempting to get away from one. The desire is to specify a kilogram as a specific number of a specific type of atoms, but what is that number? In order to do that, they need to create something that both:
1. has a measureable mass that is equivalant to the current kilogram to the _greatest_ precision it is possible to measure with todays equipment. (with a fair amount of leeway)
2. has the property that you can accurately determine the number of atoms in it to the limits of the above precision.
if _either_ of those is off then you could end up with the situation that the 'new' kilogram and the 'old' kilogram are actually different values! Even though you might think the differences are to such a small degree it doesn't matter. Imagine something like using that one famous equation E = mc^2. suddenly those minor differences turn into kilotons of yield of error:)
Because in practice, that means allowing them to control what other people are allowed to do in their own homes with their own equipment. Giving a few people veto power over everyone else's speech and actions is a drastic course of action, and there's no real need for it. I've seen no convincing argument that I should give up my own freedom so that someone else can have an easier time making a buck. Whoa. there is a big difference here. copyright law says nothing about restricting what you can do with your own equipment or your freedom of speech. the _only_ thing copyright law directly does is perhaps allow you to redistribute someone else's creation. The issues you mention are motivated by, but by no means necessary consequences of copyright law. I am very against tactics like the DMCA or any attempt to restrict 'fair use' or especially 'first sale'. It similar to how I for laws against murder, but opposed to warrentless searches of random citizens by police. I believe a limited form of copyright is a fine thing, but that enforcement should be a civil matter and up to copyright holders, not overreaching laws pushed through by media companies. Unfortunately, although we do have a constitution protecting us from certain types of government oppression, there is nothing to protect us from corperate oppression and copyright is one of the tools they use.
Don't get me wrong. I can fully respect the get rid of copyright position, but even if you are just fully opposed to copyright law, these are useful distinctions to make logically (and when arguing your point). Saying "get rid of all copyright law!" will cause a lot of people to brand you with a sterotype and tune out. But say "The DMCA is bad because it takes away these rights under the guise of copyright law" and you will get more people to listen and bring attention to the more pressing issues of individual rights being eroded in favor of big established money interests (It's not even like copyright law is the only one used for this purpose, this battle is a constant one fought on many fronts). Once people are convinced the DMCA (and other such laws) are bad they are more likely to give a critical ear to the "why not just abolish copyright altogether?" idea.
I would be strongly in favor of reforms... a much shorter limit. (50 years tops from creation date. no difference between personal and corporate). A broader and reaffirmed definition of 'fair use'. More laws specifically protecting 'first sale' and actual criminal penalties for organizations attempting to artificially limit your first sale rights via technological or other methods. And penalities in proportion to the damage done. rather than the absurdly arbitrary amounts the RIAA or whomever can declare now.
Um. I am a huge fan of the GPL and free software, and have written a lot of GPLed and BSDed software, and am fully in support of the concept of copyright in general. (Though, I think the limits need to be shortened and corporate copyright is another ball of wax). Why not allow people to control what they create? They were free to not create it in the first place, which is just as bad as if they created it and didn't give anyone a license to use it. I am against the misuse of copyright law as a bullying tool. I don't feel like copyleft is subverting copyright in any particular way, copyright law lets you do what you want with your own creations, including copyleft.
Don't get me wrong, being against copyright altogether is certainly a valid position to take, but it is by no means implied by being a fan of copyleft and free licenses.
Indeed, which is why wikipedia encourages/requires citations to those dedicated scientific texts and journals. But when it comes to math and science, wikipedia is generally an excellent place to start.
There is no way to log in as root directly. root still exists, it is anything with uid 0. The program you are telling to run an arbitrary command is running with uid 0 (root) so your command gets executed as root. Just because you can't log in as root, it doesn't mean programs don't run as root.
Indeed. they should extend the indictment requirement required by the constitution for capital offenses to these sorts of crimes. Being falsely accused of molestation is much worse than being falsely accused of murder in terms of social repurcusions. (assuming one was eventually declared innocent of both).
No, because once it is known that 85 year old white grandmothers can get by security with no trouble, that is who terrorists will start sending. Although there probably arn't many out there, it only takes one. The logic error here is assuming that bomb carrying terrorists are sampled randomly from all terrorists out there, this is simply not true. they are specifically chosen to achieve a particular task using the best knowledge available to the perpetrators.
The fact is _any_ information about who is checked reduces security. If the person is aware they are being subjected to extra scrutiny, they will send someone else next time. once they find someone who doesn't set off any alarms, they send them with the real cargo.
The safe way to do it is fully randomized whenever the passenger is aware they are being subjected to extra security, so no information about policies escapes. and to only do targeted security when the passenger doesn't have a way to determine whether it was performed or not. (such as putting the luggage through the fancier x-ray machine, or doing a more thorough background check on the identification presented)
There isn't any such limit. but it dillutes the usefulness of 'planet' as a term. This is astronomy, a science, it benefits from clear, precice, and _useful_ definitions. We can call everything that orbits the sun a planet if we like and lose its usefulness as a term, or we can just drop 'planet' as a scientific term and demote it to an historical anachronism. But neither of those are very good. If 'planet' is to be a useful term, it needs to have a precise and useful definition. There wasn't any such one that covered both pluto and the 8 planets. It's as simple as that.
In a lot of ways science _is_ terminology. You can't think about things (in a critical scientific way) or talk about them or advance your understanding of them until you name them. When Maxwell's equations were originally formed, they required pages and pages of equations and could be understood only by top mathematicians of his time. Now we can write them in a few dozen characters and they are easily understood by advanced high school students. Why? Because we gave the concepts names, and symbols. As math advanced, we recogonized that vector spaces were useful enough to get their own terminology, making complex concepts simple. As we learn about the solar system, and astronomy, we also find that new things are useful and refine the old terminology.
In addition, the sight of a helicopter probably sent all the unpainted people going about their daily business into hiding. The red painted men probably were some sort of special guards for the village. They were relatively well armed.
We did start with this 20 years ago. We had 5 pioneers, a handful of rangers, a pair of voyagers and so forth. Every one of those was a learning experience getting us to the point we are today. We are now at a point that we are relatively confident enough in our abilities and have enough knowledge about what will and won't work to go forward with a generic platform. This _is_ the cumulation of 20 years of working on the problem of space exploration.
Indeed. There are many things that can be done to prevent drunk driving, but MADD only seems interested in ones that center on stopping drinking in the first place. A good example, make the trains run later (it depends on the city/country whether this is an issue, but it certainly is here with a 12am last train and a 2am last call). make the public transport run til 3am. dead simple. I want to form a group 'DADD' "Drunks Against Drunk Driving" that works on the issue pragmatically and without the prohibitionist bent.
Slashdot Mirror
A handy note for those that don't know, Under X11 in addition to the rgb and bgr subpixel orderings, you can chose vrgb and vgbr vertical orientations to allow subpixel rendering (ClearType) for odd or rotated lcd screens.
there is gale which is secure, protocol based, distributed, and quite nice all around.
Sure you can
"With Vista, you will find yourself working harder than you ever have before"
"I cannot recommend vista too highly"
"I am pleased to say I am a former user of vista"
So those limited robotic probes can communicate of course. Not having to invent a whole new protocol and being able to re-use existing sattelites for retransmission is a big win for future missions.
There are already issues in sports with people with prosthetic parts being "too good" at certain tasks. I imagine going forward this will become more and more of an issue. The paralympic games may become where all the action is at in the future.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/17/prosthetic-limbed-runner-disqualified-from-olympics/
not necessarily, I am sure thee SCO lawyers were reading groklaw too. The research done by the groklaw readers may have preemptively shut down several attacks on linux the lawyers had planned.
The problem is that they don't know how much of that idle load is due to the CPU. You don't know whether that 4 watt difference is due to an efficient high power mode, or a really inefficient low power mode.
for instance, the nano might be 1 watt unloaded and 19 watts fully loaded, while the atom might be 20 watts unloaded and 24 watts loaded. This is clearly not the case, but would be consistent with the results.
Does it really matter whether it was caused by humans or not? If the environment collapses, we are screwed either way.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/44460
This is actually true. Potential energy is mass. This means that (endothermic) chemical bonds actually decrease the mass relative to the components of the bond. However much energy it takes to break that bond is the amount of mass difference. This is analogous to the way nuclear bombs work, if you count the neutrons/protons/electrons after a nuclear decay, you end up with the same number as are in the original atom. but a whole lot of energy was released. that energy is the energy of the nuclear force that was holding the nucleus together. since those forces contain so much more energy than the chemical bonding forces, more mass is lost, more energy is produced.
Presumably different shapes will have different numbers of chemical bonds. i.e. different masses.
That is exactly precisely what they are trying to do.
They are not making a physical standard. They are attempting to get away from one. The desire is to specify a kilogram as a specific number of a specific type of atoms, but what is that number? In order to do that, they need to create something that both:
1. has a measureable mass that is equivalant to the current kilogram to the _greatest_ precision it is possible to measure with todays equipment. (with a fair amount of leeway)
2. has the property that you can accurately determine the number of atoms in it to the limits of the above precision.
if _either_ of those is off then you could end up with the situation that the 'new' kilogram and the 'old' kilogram are actually different values! Even though you might think the differences are to such a small degree it doesn't matter. Imagine something like using that one famous equation E = mc^2. suddenly those minor differences turn into kilotons of yield of error :)
Don't get me wrong. I can fully respect the get rid of copyright position, but even if you are just fully opposed to copyright law, these are useful distinctions to make logically (and when arguing your point). Saying "get rid of all copyright law!" will cause a lot of people to brand you with a sterotype and tune out. But say "The DMCA is bad because it takes away these rights under the guise of copyright law" and you will get more people to listen and bring attention to the more pressing issues of individual rights being eroded in favor of big established money interests (It's not even like copyright law is the only one used for this purpose, this battle is a constant one fought on many fronts). Once people are convinced the DMCA (and other such laws) are bad they are more likely to give a critical ear to the "why not just abolish copyright altogether?" idea.
I would be strongly in favor of reforms... a much shorter limit. (50 years tops from creation date. no difference between personal and corporate). A broader and reaffirmed definition of 'fair use'. More laws specifically protecting 'first sale' and actual criminal penalties for organizations attempting to artificially limit your first sale rights via technological or other methods. And penalities in proportion to the damage done. rather than the absurdly arbitrary amounts the RIAA or whomever can declare now.
Um. I am a huge fan of the GPL and free software, and have written a lot of GPLed and BSDed software, and am fully in support of the concept of copyright in general. (Though, I think the limits need to be shortened and corporate copyright is another ball of wax). Why not allow people to control what they create? They were free to not create it in the first place, which is just as bad as if they created it and didn't give anyone a license to use it. I am against the misuse of copyright law as a bullying tool. I don't feel like copyleft is subverting copyright in any particular way, copyright law lets you do what you want with your own creations, including copyleft.
Don't get me wrong, being against copyright altogether is certainly a valid position to take, but it is by no means implied by being a fan of copyleft and free licenses.
Indeed, which is why wikipedia encourages/requires citations to those dedicated scientific texts and journals. But when it comes to math and science, wikipedia is generally an excellent place to start.
There is no way to log in as root directly. root still exists, it is anything with uid 0. The program you are telling to run an arbitrary command is running with uid 0 (root) so your command gets executed as root. Just because you can't log in as root, it doesn't mean programs don't run as root.
Indeed. they should extend the indictment requirement required by the constitution for capital offenses to these sorts of crimes. Being falsely accused of molestation is much worse than being falsely accused of murder in terms of social repurcusions. (assuming one was eventually declared innocent of both).
No, because once it is known that 85 year old white grandmothers can get by security with no trouble, that is who terrorists will start sending. Although there probably arn't many out there, it only takes one. The logic error here is assuming that bomb carrying terrorists are sampled randomly from all terrorists out there, this is simply not true. they are specifically chosen to achieve a particular task using the best knowledge available to the perpetrators.
The fact is _any_ information about who is checked reduces security. If the person is aware they are being subjected to extra scrutiny, they will send someone else next time. once they find someone who doesn't set off any alarms, they send them with the real cargo.
The safe way to do it is fully randomized whenever the passenger is aware they are being subjected to extra security, so no information about policies escapes. and to only do targeted security when the passenger doesn't have a way to determine whether it was performed or not. (such as putting the luggage through the fancier x-ray machine, or doing a more thorough background check on the identification presented)
No, why would he have to recuse himself?
One could make the argument that a judge that refused to ever look at porn in their life is equally biased and should recuse themselves.
If anything, I think this makes him more likely to be able to be impartial.
There isn't any such limit. but it dillutes the usefulness of 'planet' as a term. This is astronomy, a science, it benefits from clear, precice, and _useful_ definitions. We can call everything that orbits the sun a planet if we like and lose its usefulness as a term, or we can just drop 'planet' as a scientific term and demote it to an historical anachronism. But neither of those are very good. If 'planet' is to be a useful term, it needs to have a precise and useful definition. There wasn't any such one that covered both pluto and the 8 planets. It's as simple as that.
In a lot of ways science _is_ terminology. You can't think about things (in a critical scientific way) or talk about them or advance your understanding of them until you name them. When Maxwell's equations were originally formed, they required pages and pages of equations and could be understood only by top mathematicians of his time. Now we can write them in a few dozen characters and they are easily understood by advanced high school students. Why? Because we gave the concepts names, and symbols. As math advanced, we recogonized that vector spaces were useful enough to get their own terminology, making complex concepts simple. As we learn about the solar system, and astronomy, we also find that new things are useful and refine the old terminology.
Of course, this is a fertile ground of discussion and there are various takes on the issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
You don't need it to not be a threat at all, just less of a threat than a backhoe.
In addition, the sight of a helicopter probably sent all the unpainted people going about their daily business into hiding. The red painted men probably were some sort of special guards for the village. They were relatively well armed.
doh! posted the wrong URL
http://securepoint.com/lists/html/bugtraq/2007-02/msg00056.html
Interestingly, another source of compromised security is seeding too often.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2008/msg00152.html
is an example of a vulnerability caused by seeding the random number generator with the current time right before use.
We did start with this 20 years ago. We had 5 pioneers, a handful of rangers, a pair of voyagers and so forth. Every one of those was a learning experience getting us to the point we are today. We are now at a point that we are relatively confident enough in our abilities and have enough knowledge about what will and won't work to go forward with a generic platform. This _is_ the cumulation of 20 years of working on the problem of space exploration.
Indeed. There are many things that can be done to prevent drunk driving, but MADD only seems interested in ones that center on stopping drinking in the first place. A good example, make the trains run later (it depends on the city/country whether this is an issue, but it certainly is here with a 12am last train and a 2am last call). make the public transport run til 3am. dead simple. I want to form a group 'DADD' "Drunks Against Drunk Driving" that works on the issue pragmatically and without the prohibitionist bent.