Quantum physics, on the other hand, can be disproved here and now, if and only if, something outside the 'laws' of quantum theory is discovered to work...
Not exactly. If we find something outside of QCD or QED, and there are hints of physics beyond what we think we understand, it's unlikely to unseat all quantum physics, just as the introduction of quantum physics didn't unseat all of classical mechanics, it just extended it into new realms.
For example, as long as you're talking about macroscopic objects at reasonably slow speeds, F=ma is exceedingly accurate. Really, really, really accurate. It's only when you get to what one might consider insane speeds that it breaks down, and you have to include additional terms dependent upon speed. The introduction of relativistic physics didn't mean we threw classical mechanics out the door -- it merely extended the range over which we could make accurate predictions and insightful analyses. Similarily, as long as you're talking about macroscopic objects at reasonably slow speeds, charge seems to be a continuous property. It's only when you get to small enough bits of matter (eg, in an oil droplet experiment) that it becomes obvious that charge is quantized. This doesn't mean that the formulas used to design capacitors, for example, have to suddenly be thrown out the window.
Each of the revolutions is physics that we have seen in the last century didn't obviate the previous body of knowledge, instead they extended it into new realms. The body of evidence for the Standard Model is overwhelming at this point (including every single flash-based memory chip out there) and it becomes exceedingly unlikely that it will be disproved. There are, however, some indications that in sufficiently exotic corners, we don't yet understand everything, so it's entirely reasonable to expect that a new extension will be found, be it string theory, super symmetry, or whatever. But disproven? Probably not.
It's rare for an sound/recording/editing engineer to cut off low frequencies, after all this is where there's a lot of percussiveness...
Um... Percussiveness is also in the higher frequencies. A kick drum's snap is substantially in the upper register. The punch is in the lower frequencies. If you cut the high end off a kick, you get muddled, floppy sound. If you remember your Signals and Systems, this makes sense: a perfect kick drum hit will be an impulse, which has energy at all frequencies.
Exactly. Just because Jobs threatens to pull Pixar's relationship with Disney does not mean he actually would. Couple the phrase, "fiendishly good negotiator," with, "reality distortion field," and you get someone who would threaten the life of your mother, and have you really seriously believe him, when, in fact, you both know in the light of day that it's completely illegal and he'd never do it.
Even at 100GHz, the wavelength of microwaves is 3 mm. But sound waves inside a room would cause a surface to vibrate perhaps 0.001 mm. You cant modulate a 3mm wave to record 0.001 mm changes.
Interference detectors, more commonly known as interferometers, can detect distances far below the wavelength used to make the measurements. For example, 800 nm infrared laser light can readily be used to resolve 5 nm differences (I've worked on the development of such a system). Further, the distances being considered for measuring the movement of things like clothing or the throat and chest of the speaker are far above one micron (0.001 mm): put your finger on your throat and speak; think that's one micron you're feeling?
Electronic products got us to the moon. They fly in the Shuttle. They orbit the Earth, Mars, have landed on numerous planets, even escaped the solar system, after having been subjected to the insane stress of liftoff, high levels of interplanetary radiation, and a beating by interplanetary micrometeorites, some times for years at a stretch. In some cases, such things -- the Pioneer probes and the Mars Rovers come to mind -- last far, far beyond their design lifetimes.
In other words, being an electronic product does not automatically imply delicacy or a lack of hardiness. What perhaps you meant to say is that iPod Nanos are inexpensive consumer-grade electronic products with short design lifetimes and should be treated as such.
Then again, I've had a small handful of cell phones in my time, treated each with a definitive lack of care, and they did not reveal themselves to have problems with scratching. Sure some parts, including the display, did get scratched, but the products were designed with this in mind. The iPod Nano design relies in part on a shiny outer surface to maintain one of the primary features of the product: sexiness. The Apple engineers should have taken greater care to protect that.
To the lay eye, it certainly appears that the initially identified location was questionable at best, because of the high levels of background noise. The few pixels of dark near the few pixels of light could, perhaps, have been a lander, but they also could have been just noise. Although the linked article doesn't mention this, there would be, I'd hope, a decent amount of statistical analysis to show that these pixels were a good 3+ sigma away from background. But by looking at it, you sure don't get that impression, as there are a handful of places that the arrow could just as easily pointed at and declared "lander!".
What's really impressive, though, is the newest set of images with vastly improved resolution and reduced noise! And, unless there's something about a Shuttle mission to replace hardware in Mars orbit that we haven't heard about, this is on the same optics and sensors! Sounds like some good old-fashioned software engineering improvements of the like that JPL gets far too little credit for. Anyone involved in the project know for sure?
The name of the concept, utilising Alfvén waves to accelerate ionised matter for propulsive purposes, is MOA - Magnetic field Oscillating Amplified thruster.
Surely everyone must be familiar with Drs. Hikita and Lazardo's work on the oscillation overthruster!
From this comment, Jon Rubenstein (head of Apple's iPod division), is clearly confusing hardness with durability or toughness. The reason that safety glasses (and most common eyeglasses) are made from polycarbonate is that it is very flexible and resistant to cracking. However, polycarbonate, even in the name-brand form Lexan which is used to make bullet-proof windows, is very soft. Know what happens when you shoot a pellet gun at a pair of safety glasses? The glasses don't break, but they get a very nice pit in them. The softness of polycarbonate is the reason (and the only reason other than greed) that your friendly optometrist wants to sell you anti-scratch coating on your new set of eye-glasses. Apple's materials engineers should have known better when they specified uncoated polycarbonate.
You'll probably want to change the name of your game as the folks at Lugaru Software, makers of an excellent Emacs clone for the PC, will likely seek to have words with you if you don't.
I'm a big fan of Epsilon, Lugaru's main product. It's great. It ran on the DOS and Windows platforms years before gnu-emacs did. They have a great printed manual, and their pricing has always been reasonable for a highly polished commercial product.
The second most important thing to me in a drawing program, and only just behind the usability of the package, is how transparent the file format is.
This is important because 10 years from now, when I've moved jobs, am working in a vastly different OS, have backed up my drawings through N generations of media, I probably won't have access to the original code which created a drawing which I'd like to view, print, etc. If the basic underlying representation is a commonly used format, there's a much better chance of at least viewing the electronic files. If the underlying representation is in some unique format (doesn't have to be proprietary or closed) that nothing else reads, I might as well try to recreate the drawing from scratch in a different tool.
I am a visual researcher working on visual prosthetics (aka artificial eyes), so you get to choose if my opinions are those of an expert or a fanatic.
I don't care if I get cataracts, really. Certainly life would be better if they never happen, but current medical techniques to treat cateracts by replacing the lens with a plastic equivalent are very well developed and have such low physiological impact that they can be done on an out-patient basis in about 10 minutes. It's really not a big deal. Replacing a lens is less invasive than doing LASIK or any of the other similar lens modifying procedures that require partial dissection of the cornea. To replace the lens, a small incision is cut near the limbus (the edge of the cornea), an ultrasonic wand inserted through the incision to break up the lens, then a suction tube used to clean up the debris, and a new lens (folded up with a spring around the edge like those windshield shades for your car) inserted and deployed. Local anesthesia only, and post-op care is dark glasses for a day or two because of the drugs used to dialate the pupil. Typically, if both eyes are done, one is set to be near-sighted, the other far-sighted, and the brain learns very quickly to automatically switch between the two.
So, while cateracts (and yellowing of the lens, a nearly ubiquitous condition in the aged) used to be debilitating, they are nearly a non-problem now.
Since when is a Fedora Core release experimental, development code? This isn't a prerelease, it's the full thing.
Since the beginning. As another poster provided a nice description of the release path, RHEL is the real deal, FC is a waypoint. Now, granted, it's a good enough waypoint that most people are happy with FC (I certainly am), but that's not for a server.
Second, while some servers still run RH6.2, it's mostly because if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Exactly my point in criticizing the previous poster's question about upgrading a server from FC1 to FC2. It isn't a valid question. If he had said, "my desktop machine," or, "my grandmother's PC," it would be an entirely different issue, but he did not, he spoke of his, "semi-production server." Servers, especially production ones, do not willy-nilly upgrade to the latest and greatest version of the OS.
I have a semi-production server that's running on FC1, and I don't want a clean install.
Let's concentrate on the first part of the quote before going on to the second: A semi-production server running FC1. You're running experimental, development code on a sever? Huh? The primary concern with a server is stability and reliability. Secondary to that is performance (if you have a whiz-bang fast server that goes down once a day, you are doing something wrong). Plenty of web sites are still using RedHat 6.2 because it's so stable.
What features could you possibly want on a server that you don't currently have (since you apparently have a functioning system) that you're willing to give up stability for? How have you configured your system that it isn't easy to replace the OS if you need to? My guess is that you aren't really serious about the question, or that you aren't really serious about your server.
So let's try this again: you want to upgrade a system. It has some important stuff on it. And this stuff is so important that you're not willing to back it up (or place it on separate partitions) to be able to do a clean install to ensure you won't have nasty interaction problems between bits of the old OS and new OS plaguing you interminably? You have something important on your computer and you DON'T want to do a clean install?
It's not an off-topic question, its a question that doesn't make any sense, any way you slice it.
The real problem for Linux vs MacOS is that Apple has strict control over their hardware and can make sure that it all works for the N (5?) platorms that they sell with relative ease. Linux is supposed to work on some old 486 up to the newest dual-core Opterons with vastly different compatibility issues and interoperability standards.
What's the solution? Something I argued for a long time ago in the MythTV forums: standardize on a small set of recommended hardware. Want Linux to work out-of-the-box? Get one of these N systems. If you deviate from these specifications, things might work, they might not, and developers aren't going to care very much.
How many hundreds of sound cards are there? Why is it important that Linux support *all* of them? Why can't we standardise on, say, 3 or 5 models? Same goes for video cards, mice, etc.
I now make sure the company IT system "forget" the first document and I've successfully screwed you.
Not quite, beacuse of reasonable doubt and the fact that the hypothetical employee would have copies of the document.
However, Alice can get Bob to sign an innocuous recommendation letter that in the hidden version is a power of attorney for Bob's bank accounts. Alice can then take the fraudulent letter to Bob's bank and with apparent legality, take all of his money. (The difference being that a third party is involved who is naive to the document Bob signed and his intents.) This is effectively the scenario suggested in TFA, and because there is no alternate version of the document, Bob has no recourse (unlike the parent poster's suggestion).
To exploit this hole in MD5 (SHA-1, or whichever hashing function you like), you need to create two completely different documents, not two which are different versions of the same thing and can be compared by humans. That's the real hole: these documents need to be printed out (or rendered on a screen) and interpreted by humans who assume that the rendering process is trustworthy because it is complete and veracious. If humans natively read PostScript with the same ease we read English, for example, this kind of exploit wouldn't be possible.
You have obviously never tried to do any EMC compliance testing.
Not formally, no. But I have over a decade of experience working with measuring microvolt signals in the presence and absence of interfering EM.
The amount any consumer electronic device is allowed to emit is 30dbuV/m (-76dbm) (quasi peak) measured at 10m.
And you're missing the point that this is what a consumer electronic device is allowed to emit when compliant, and there's nothing that guarantees John Q. Public's iPod isn't wildly out of compliance, either because of a manufacturing defect, because he dropped it and cracked the case (and thus violated the integrity of the shielding), or it was improperly repaired, or -- heaven forbid! -- he might have opened it to modify it for some reason, like to replace the battery (this is Slashdot afterall), and didn't do a bang-up job of putting it all back together again, or, it might be a counterfeit iPod from a country where they could care less about EMC compliance.
Just because Company A gets Device B to pass Official Test C doesn't mean your copy of B would meet the requirements of C over its entire lifetime. Stuff happens.
Don't forget, modern jets have zillions of electronics in them from seat phones, entertainment systems, lighting inverters, motor control etc etc.
All of which is -- or more importantly can be -- tested to ensure a lack of interference. That's not as easy to do with some random consumer device.
It certainly is a vast change of policy for the FAA since they for years and years wouldn't even allow non-superheterodyne transistor radios. I'm with another poster who doesn't understand why it would be reasonable to have active cell phones and active 802.11b in the air when each of those transmitters when working correctly is putting out tens of mW.
Contrary to your belief that your iPod cannot possibly interfere with any radio based systems, allow me to remind you of the following items,
1. Microprocessor based systems have clocks that usually have square wave profiles running at several MHz. Recall that square wave signals have significant power at many harmonics, well into the bands used on airplanes.
2. You might think your iPod is working perfectly, but how can the pilot be sure that it meets the required specs for RF emission? Perhaps it has been reparied, perhaps to replace a battery, and perhaps by someone who isn't properly trained and doesn't reassemble and test for RF leakage?
3. What do you think the pilot should do when you decide to turn on your iPod at the very minute he's trying to negotiate with a tower over approach, and it masks out a command to shift flight levels during initial approach (forget final)? Do you think he has time to go through the cabin to find the one device that interferes?
4. Remember that your iPod is at least two orders of magnitude closer to the airplane's antenna than the transmitter the pilot is trying to listen to. Your iPod might not intentionally transmit at very high power, but it still might be stronger than a signal that is, oh, 5 miles away on the ground (cruising, line-of-sight straight down).
5. Multiply your iPod in row 38 by, say, 38 rows. You now have 38 times as much possible interference. I'm frankly surprized that electronic devices are allowed at all, and amazed that since compliance to turn things off is never 100%, there aren't more problems on takeoff and approach due to interference. I have witnessed one instance of what was likely in-flight interference when the PA system was non-functional in the air, but fine on the ground. Can you imagine if there had been a problem on that flight?
6. Solar flares have impact over very large structures, like power lines, where the integrated voltage and current can add up to substantial levels. They don't have much effect on objects the scale of an airplane. That said, solar flares can, and do, impact communications through atmospheric effects. Perhaps pilots on Slashdot could comment here.
7. The real problem, which perhaps readers are beginning to understand, is not that handheld electronic devices do interfere with the navigation and communication systems on airplanes, but that they may interfere, and, worse, they may interfere at a critical moment. With potentially hundreds of lives at risk, the FAA errs on the side of caution, and as a result, we have an air system which is by-and-large exceedingly safe.
And 6.004 students at MIT used to build similar computers, although they didn't do nearly as much design work. They did, however, span the full gamut of code from the very lowest level (called "nanocode" in the Maybe Machine) to OS-level functions. In one term. Including writing direct emulation code for a number of radically different architectures.
Similarily, 6.170 students would build reasonably large projects out of TTL circuitry in three weeks. The one I worked on didn't have quite 2000 TTL chips, but it had perhaps 200, including custom designed hardware, instruction set, assembler, and so forth. My team built a polyphonic music synthesizer, the sort of thing that now you can get as a little keychain do-dad for $1.29 at the checkout counter that's made of a single custom IC, a piezoelectric speaker and chicklet buttons for keys.
Guess the parent poster hasn't heard about them, nor the handful of companies that are producing single-chip web interfaces.
The original story is a fun garage hack, mostly for the basic engineering chutzpa (Why build it when you can buy a single, small IC that does all of this and more? Because it was fun!), but a technical advance it is not.
It is definitely not as fast as programs created in C/FORTRAN, but it's not the speed of the code that's the objective here -it's how fast you can write up some code.
Very nearly correct. As an educated and trained Computer Scientist (MIT) there are things about the Matlab language that are loathsome. Like the inane scoping rules. As an educated and trained Biologist (Caltech, Harvard), I love Matlab because the time it takes me to get an answer to a scientific question is VERY short. And, as a scientist, results are more important than anything else.
So, it's not the speed of coding alone that's the biggest benefit, it's the total time to answer a question. That would include visualisation tools, debugging tools, and so forth. Matlab as a language? Middling-to-fair. Matlab as a scientific tool? Very nearly without peer.
I've often wondered about this because a normal sized vacuum cleaner has a pretty big bag that still needs to be renewed often. Same with the new scrubbing robot: the resevoir can be at most 1/2 the internal volume (source AND drain need to be enclosed, ignoring all other things like motors, wheels, batteries, electronics, etc) making it pretty paltry. Sure the video shows it working on a 2 sq ft test surface, but what about my 250 sq ft eat-in kitchen?
I must make a very important point here that many people (users) just don't get: with FOSS software, everyone developing it is freely putting their time into the project and getting nothing in return except the features they are implementing. This means that in general, developers working on a FOSS project will only implement features that they themselves want. So basically, if you want something doing then you may well have to do it yourself, you certainly shouldn't expect someone else to give up their time to do it.
This is a commonly-held belief which is shortsighted. When your user base is a small handful of people, then sure, you can do whatever you want as a developer. When your user base is tens of thousands of users, deciding that you want to do one thing or another without consulting them, or, more germane to MythTV, in vocal defiance of their requests, is arrogant.
Slashdot Mirror
Quantum physics, on the other hand, can be disproved here and now, if and only if, something outside the 'laws' of quantum theory is discovered to work...
Not exactly. If we find something outside of QCD or QED, and there are hints of physics beyond what we think we understand, it's unlikely to unseat all quantum physics, just as the introduction of quantum physics didn't unseat all of classical mechanics, it just extended it into new realms.
For example, as long as you're talking about macroscopic objects at reasonably slow speeds, F=ma is exceedingly accurate. Really, really, really accurate. It's only when you get to what one might consider insane speeds that it breaks down, and you have to include additional terms dependent upon speed. The introduction of relativistic physics didn't mean we threw classical mechanics out the door -- it merely extended the range over which we could make accurate predictions and insightful analyses. Similarily, as long as you're talking about macroscopic objects at reasonably slow speeds, charge seems to be a continuous property. It's only when you get to small enough bits of matter (eg, in an oil droplet experiment) that it becomes obvious that charge is quantized. This doesn't mean that the formulas used to design capacitors, for example, have to suddenly be thrown out the window.
Each of the revolutions is physics that we have seen in the last century didn't obviate the previous body of knowledge, instead they extended it into new realms. The body of evidence for the Standard Model is overwhelming at this point (including every single flash-based memory chip out there) and it becomes exceedingly unlikely that it will be disproved. There are, however, some indications that in sufficiently exotic corners, we don't yet understand everything, so it's entirely reasonable to expect that a new extension will be found, be it string theory, super symmetry, or whatever. But disproven? Probably not.
It's rare for an sound/recording/editing engineer to cut off low frequencies, after all this is where there's a lot of percussiveness ...
Um... Percussiveness is also in the higher frequencies. A kick drum's snap is substantially in the upper register. The punch is in the lower frequencies. If you cut the high end off a kick, you get muddled, floppy sound. If you remember your Signals and Systems, this makes sense: a perfect kick drum hit will be an impulse, which has energy at all frequencies.
Exactly. Just because Jobs threatens to pull Pixar's relationship with Disney does not mean he actually would. Couple the phrase, "fiendishly good negotiator," with, "reality distortion field," and you get someone who would threaten the life of your mother, and have you really seriously believe him, when, in fact, you both know in the light of day that it's completely illegal and he'd never do it.
Even at 100GHz, the wavelength of microwaves is 3 mm. But sound waves inside a room would cause a surface to vibrate perhaps 0.001 mm. You cant modulate a 3mm wave to record 0.001 mm changes.
Interference detectors, more commonly known as interferometers, can detect distances far below the wavelength used to make the measurements. For example, 800 nm infrared laser light can readily be used to resolve 5 nm differences (I've worked on the development of such a system). Further, the distances being considered for measuring the movement of things like clothing or the throat and chest of the speaker are far above one micron (0.001 mm): put your finger on your throat and speak; think that's one micron you're feeling?
It's an electronic product: treat it as such.
Electronic products got us to the moon. They fly in the Shuttle. They orbit the Earth, Mars, have landed on numerous planets, even escaped the solar system, after having been subjected to the insane stress of liftoff, high levels of interplanetary radiation, and a beating by interplanetary micrometeorites, some times for years at a stretch. In some cases, such things -- the Pioneer probes and the Mars Rovers come to mind -- last far, far beyond their design lifetimes.
In other words, being an electronic product does not automatically imply delicacy or a lack of hardiness. What perhaps you meant to say is that iPod Nanos are inexpensive consumer-grade electronic products with short design lifetimes and should be treated as such.
Then again, I've had a small handful of cell phones in my time, treated each with a definitive lack of care, and they did not reveal themselves to have problems with scratching. Sure some parts, including the display, did get scratched, but the products were designed with this in mind. The iPod Nano design relies in part on a shiny outer surface to maintain one of the primary features of the product: sexiness. The Apple engineers should have taken greater care to protect that.
To the lay eye, it certainly appears that the initially identified location was questionable at best, because of the high levels of background noise. The few pixels of dark near the few pixels of light could, perhaps, have been a lander, but they also could have been just noise. Although the linked article doesn't mention this, there would be, I'd hope, a decent amount of statistical analysis to show that these pixels were a good 3+ sigma away from background. But by looking at it, you sure don't get that impression, as there are a handful of places that the arrow could just as easily pointed at and declared "lander!".
What's really impressive, though, is the newest set of images with vastly improved resolution and reduced noise! And, unless there's something about a Shuttle mission to replace hardware in Mars orbit that we haven't heard about, this is on the same optics and sensors! Sounds like some good old-fashioned software engineering improvements of the like that JPL gets far too little credit for. Anyone involved in the project know for sure?
The name of the concept, utilising Alfvén waves to accelerate ionised matter for propulsive purposes, is MOA - Magnetic field Oscillating Amplified thruster.
Surely everyone must be familiar with Drs. Hikita and Lazardo's work on the oscillation overthruster!
It's made of the hardest polycarbonate
From this comment, Jon Rubenstein (head of Apple's iPod division), is clearly confusing hardness with durability or toughness. The reason that safety glasses (and most common eyeglasses) are made from polycarbonate is that it is very flexible and resistant to cracking. However, polycarbonate, even in the name-brand form Lexan which is used to make bullet-proof windows, is very soft. Know what happens when you shoot a pellet gun at a pair of safety glasses? The glasses don't break, but they get a very nice pit in them. The softness of polycarbonate is the reason (and the only reason other than greed) that your friendly optometrist wants to sell you anti-scratch coating on your new set of eye-glasses. Apple's materials engineers should have known better when they specified uncoated polycarbonate.
And you think he'd publish his internal Google email account for what reason, again?
You'll probably want to change the name of your game as the folks at Lugaru Software, makers of an excellent Emacs clone for the PC, will likely seek to have words with you if you don't.
I'm a big fan of Epsilon, Lugaru's main product. It's great. It ran on the DOS and Windows platforms years before gnu-emacs did. They have a great printed manual, and their pricing has always been reasonable for a highly polished commercial product.
The second most important thing to me in a drawing program, and only just behind the usability of the package, is how transparent the file format is.
This is important because 10 years from now, when I've moved jobs, am working in a vastly different OS, have backed up my drawings through N generations of media, I probably won't have access to the original code which created a drawing which I'd like to view, print, etc. If the basic underlying representation is a commonly used format, there's a much better chance of at least viewing the electronic files. If the underlying representation is in some unique format (doesn't have to be proprietary or closed) that nothing else reads, I might as well try to recreate the drawing from scratch in a different tool.
I am a visual researcher working on visual prosthetics (aka artificial eyes), so you get to choose if my opinions are those of an expert or a fanatic.
I don't care if I get cataracts, really. Certainly life would be better if they never happen, but current medical techniques to treat cateracts by replacing the lens with a plastic equivalent are very well developed and have such low physiological impact that they can be done on an out-patient basis in about 10 minutes. It's really not a big deal. Replacing a lens is less invasive than doing LASIK or any of the other similar lens modifying procedures that require partial dissection of the cornea. To replace the lens, a small incision is cut near the limbus (the edge of the cornea), an ultrasonic wand inserted through the incision to break up the lens, then a suction tube used to clean up the debris, and a new lens (folded up with a spring around the edge like those windshield shades for your car) inserted and deployed. Local anesthesia only, and post-op care is dark glasses for a day or two because of the drugs used to dialate the pupil. Typically, if both eyes are done, one is set to be near-sighted, the other far-sighted, and the brain learns very quickly to automatically switch between the two.
So, while cateracts (and yellowing of the lens, a nearly ubiquitous condition in the aged) used to be debilitating, they are nearly a non-problem now.
... should have said "upgrading a server from FC1 to FC4" ...
Since when is a Fedora Core release experimental, development code? This isn't a prerelease, it's the full thing.
Since the beginning. As another poster provided a nice description of the release path, RHEL is the real deal, FC is a waypoint. Now, granted, it's a good enough waypoint that most people are happy with FC (I certainly am), but that's not for a server.
Second, while some servers still run RH6.2, it's mostly because if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Exactly my point in criticizing the previous poster's question about upgrading a server from FC1 to FC2. It isn't a valid question. If he had said, "my desktop machine," or, "my grandmother's PC," it would be an entirely different issue, but he did not, he spoke of his, "semi-production server." Servers, especially production ones, do not willy-nilly upgrade to the latest and greatest version of the OS.
p.s. Nice ID number!
I have a semi-production server that's running on FC1, and I don't want a clean install.
Let's concentrate on the first part of the quote before going on to the second: A semi-production server running FC1. You're running experimental, development code on a sever? Huh? The primary concern with a server is stability and reliability. Secondary to that is performance (if you have a whiz-bang fast server that goes down once a day, you are doing something wrong). Plenty of web sites are still using RedHat 6.2 because it's so stable.
What features could you possibly want on a server that you don't currently have (since you apparently have a functioning system) that you're willing to give up stability for? How have you configured your system that it isn't easy to replace the OS if you need to? My guess is that you aren't really serious about the question, or that you aren't really serious about your server.
So let's try this again: you want to upgrade a system. It has some important stuff on it. And this stuff is so important that you're not willing to back it up (or place it on separate partitions) to be able to do a clean install to ensure you won't have nasty interaction problems between bits of the old OS and new OS plaguing you interminably? You have something important on your computer and you DON'T want to do a clean install?
It's not an off-topic question, its a question that doesn't make any sense, any way you slice it.
I agree wholeheartedly.
The real problem for Linux vs MacOS is that Apple has strict control over their hardware and can make sure that it all works for the N (5?) platorms that they sell with relative ease. Linux is supposed to work on some old 486 up to the newest dual-core Opterons with vastly different compatibility issues and interoperability standards.
What's the solution? Something I argued for a long time ago in the MythTV forums: standardize on a small set of recommended hardware. Want Linux to work out-of-the-box? Get one of these N systems. If you deviate from these specifications, things might work, they might not, and developers aren't going to care very much.
How many hundreds of sound cards are there? Why is it important that Linux support *all* of them? Why can't we standardise on, say, 3 or 5 models? Same goes for video cards, mice, etc.
I now make sure the company IT system "forget" the first document and I've successfully screwed you.
Not quite, beacuse of reasonable doubt and the fact that the hypothetical employee would have copies of the document.
However, Alice can get Bob to sign an innocuous recommendation letter that in the hidden version is a power of attorney for Bob's bank accounts. Alice can then take the fraudulent letter to Bob's bank and with apparent legality, take all of his money. (The difference being that a third party is involved who is naive to the document Bob signed and his intents.) This is effectively the scenario suggested in TFA, and because there is no alternate version of the document, Bob has no recourse (unlike the parent poster's suggestion).
To exploit this hole in MD5 (SHA-1, or whichever hashing function you like), you need to create two completely different documents, not two which are different versions of the same thing and can be compared by humans. That's the real hole: these documents need to be printed out (or rendered on a screen) and interpreted by humans who assume that the rendering process is trustworthy because it is complete and veracious. If humans natively read PostScript with the same ease we read English, for example, this kind of exploit wouldn't be possible.
You have obviously never tried to do any EMC compliance testing.
Not formally, no. But I have over a decade of experience working with measuring microvolt signals in the presence and absence of interfering EM.
The amount any consumer electronic device is allowed to emit is 30dbuV/m (-76dbm) (quasi peak) measured at 10m.
And you're missing the point that this is what a consumer electronic device is allowed to emit when compliant, and there's nothing that guarantees John Q. Public's iPod isn't wildly out of compliance, either because of a manufacturing defect, because he dropped it and cracked the case (and thus violated the integrity of the shielding), or it was improperly repaired, or -- heaven forbid! -- he might have opened it to modify it for some reason, like to replace the battery (this is Slashdot afterall), and didn't do a bang-up job of putting it all back together again, or, it might be a counterfeit iPod from a country where they could care less about EMC compliance.
Just because Company A gets Device B to pass Official Test C doesn't mean your copy of B would meet the requirements of C over its entire lifetime. Stuff happens.
Don't forget, modern jets have zillions of electronics in them from seat phones, entertainment systems, lighting inverters, motor control etc etc.
All of which is -- or more importantly can be -- tested to ensure a lack of interference. That's not as easy to do with some random consumer device.
It certainly is a vast change of policy for the FAA since they for years and years wouldn't even allow non-superheterodyne transistor radios. I'm with another poster who doesn't understand why it would be reasonable to have active cell phones and active 802.11b in the air when each of those transmitters when working correctly is putting out tens of mW.
Contrary to your belief that your iPod cannot possibly interfere with any radio based systems, allow me to remind you of the following items,
1. Microprocessor based systems have clocks that usually have square wave profiles running at several MHz. Recall that square wave signals have significant power at many harmonics, well into the bands used on airplanes.
2. You might think your iPod is working perfectly, but how can the pilot be sure that it meets the required specs for RF emission? Perhaps it has been reparied, perhaps to replace a battery, and perhaps by someone who isn't properly trained and doesn't reassemble and test for RF leakage?
3. What do you think the pilot should do when you decide to turn on your iPod at the very minute he's trying to negotiate with a tower over approach, and it masks out a command to shift flight levels during initial approach (forget final)? Do you think he has time to go through the cabin to find the one device that interferes?
4. Remember that your iPod is at least two orders of magnitude closer to the airplane's antenna than the transmitter the pilot is trying to listen to. Your iPod might not intentionally transmit at very high power, but it still might be stronger than a signal that is, oh, 5 miles away on the ground (cruising, line-of-sight straight down).
5. Multiply your iPod in row 38 by, say, 38 rows. You now have 38 times as much possible interference. I'm frankly surprized that electronic devices are allowed at all, and amazed that since compliance to turn things off is never 100%, there aren't more problems on takeoff and approach due to interference. I have witnessed one instance of what was likely in-flight interference when the PA system was non-functional in the air, but fine on the ground. Can you imagine if there had been a problem on that flight?
6. Solar flares have impact over very large structures, like power lines, where the integrated voltage and current can add up to substantial levels. They don't have much effect on objects the scale of an airplane. That said, solar flares can, and do, impact communications through atmospheric effects. Perhaps pilots on Slashdot could comment here.
7. The real problem, which perhaps readers are beginning to understand, is not that handheld electronic devices do interfere with the navigation and communication systems on airplanes, but that they may interfere, and, worse, they may interfere at a critical moment. With potentially hundreds of lives at risk, the FAA errs on the side of caution, and as a result, we have an air system which is by-and-large exceedingly safe.
And 6.004 students at MIT used to build similar computers, although they didn't do nearly as much design work. They did, however, span the full gamut of code from the very lowest level (called "nanocode" in the Maybe Machine) to OS-level functions. In one term. Including writing direct emulation code for a number of radically different architectures.
Similarily, 6.170 students would build reasonably large projects out of TTL circuitry in three weeks. The one I worked on didn't have quite 2000 TTL chips, but it had perhaps 200, including custom designed hardware, instruction set, assembler, and so forth. My team built a polyphonic music synthesizer, the sort of thing that now you can get as a little keychain do-dad for $1.29 at the checkout counter that's made of a single custom IC, a piezoelectric speaker and chicklet buttons for keys.
How about innovation like, oh, say, a complete web server inside an RJ45 jack?
e d-device-servers/xport.html
http://www.lantronix.com/device-networking/embedd
Guess the parent poster hasn't heard about them, nor the handful of companies that are producing single-chip web interfaces.
The original story is a fun garage hack, mostly for the basic engineering chutzpa (Why build it when you can buy a single, small IC that does all of this and more? Because it was fun!), but a technical advance it is not.
It is definitely not as fast as programs created in C/FORTRAN, but it's not the speed of the code that's the objective here -it's how fast you can write up some code.
Very nearly correct. As an educated and trained Computer Scientist (MIT) there are things about the Matlab language that are loathsome. Like the inane scoping rules. As an educated and trained Biologist (Caltech, Harvard), I love Matlab because the time it takes me to get an answer to a scientific question is VERY short. And, as a scientist, results are more important than anything else.
So, it's not the speed of coding alone that's the biggest benefit, it's the total time to answer a question. That would include visualisation tools, debugging tools, and so forth. Matlab as a language? Middling-to-fair. Matlab as a scientific tool? Very nearly without peer.
Collection bin is too small.
I've often wondered about this because a normal sized vacuum cleaner has a pretty big bag that still needs to be renewed often. Same with the new scrubbing robot: the resevoir can be at most 1/2 the internal volume (source AND drain need to be enclosed, ignoring all other things like motors, wheels, batteries, electronics, etc) making it pretty paltry. Sure the video shows it working on a 2 sq ft test surface, but what about my 250 sq ft eat-in kitchen?
I must make a very important point here that many people (users) just don't get: with FOSS software, everyone developing it is freely putting their time into the project and getting nothing in return except the features they are implementing. This means that in general, developers working on a FOSS project will only implement features that they themselves want. So basically, if you want something doing then you may well have to do it yourself, you certainly shouldn't expect someone else to give up their time to do it.
This is a commonly-held belief which is shortsighted. When your user base is a small handful of people, then sure, you can do whatever you want as a developer. When your user base is tens of thousands of users, deciding that you want to do one thing or another without consulting them, or, more germane to MythTV, in vocal defiance of their requests, is arrogant.