Er, you read the part about them both being Dems, right?
When it says "Rep. Mike Doogan", it means "Representative Mike Doogan", not "Republican Mike Doogan". Usually on T.V. they put a (D) or (R) at the end of the name to help folk like you who can't read goodly enough to unnerstand such thins even tho dey are writ down in da very same set'nce.
The fact is, the anonymous reporter has absolutely no right to anonymity. She has the right to POST (publish, speak, etc.) anonymously, but there is no guaranteed protection of her identity beyond what she is able to provide for herself.
What those cases of journalists protecting their anonymous sources proved a few years back was not a right of anonymity of an individual, but rather the lack of the government's right to force someone to reveal an anonymous source. It's a little different, but if you are able to determine a source's identity without forcing the information out of a journalist (or forcing it out of any private citizen, for that matter) beyond what can legally be requested, then it is perfectly legal for the government or anybody else to "oust" them.
Same thing with posting, speaking, or publishing anonymously. It is up to the individual to protect their own identity, and if they can't get enough assistance to adequately protect themselves from being outed, and a potentially ruined or damaged career (probably the latter in this case, she attacked a well liked member of her own party after all), perhaps the individual should think twice before doing so?
The only real question here, is whether or not Mike Doogan used State resources to settle a personal matter. That is (potentially) an abuse of power which could get him kicked out of office. Personally, I would be very careful about how I did something like that, but who knows what politicians think when they have a bit of power and a few resources at their disposal.
- Advertisers want people with lots of money (affluent). - People with lots of money tend to be college educated and/or intelligent (geeks/professionals). - Therefore you need to develop shows that these persons find mentally challenging.
Actually, it breaks down like this:
- Advertisers want people with disposable income (irresponsible with cash). - People with disposable income tend to be spending someone else's money (teenagers/college students). - Therefore you need to develop shows that these persons find entertaining (ie utter shite).
I don't have hard facts in front of me, and I'm too lazy to get them, but I do believe it has been well established that the #1 consumers in the country are 15-25 year olds. That's why everybody wants to tap that market, they are all spending Mommy and Daddy's money. Mommy and Daddy don't even need to have a lot, the teenagers are just spending whatever extra they have, making them the most powerful consumer bracket for marketers to target.
Hence, the totally lame move to this idiotic "SyFy" name, and probably a further dumbing down of content to appeal to this market. To be honest, I used to love the SciFi channel, but I haven't watched it in years and it looks like I won't be watching it much in the future either.
Apparently he played the frickin movie (young girl undressing and performing sexual acts) for them.
Dumbass deserves to go to jail for a long time, half the charge should be stupidity IMO.
At that point, refusing to give the encryption key, or at least a copy of the unencrypted data, is obstruction of justice and has nothing to do with self-incrimination. He already incriminated himself, he can't un-incriminate himself is what the judge is saying.
That is true for employment and government related services. However between private parties (and Microsoft is a private party) that is not true in almost every case. In those cases where private services ARE regulated in this manner, it is almost exclusively for gender and race relations, not sexuality.
I'm not sure what California's laws are in this regard, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were more extreme regarding anti-discrimination, but in general discrimination for most any reason is a right among private parties, and it would be a sad day for our freedom if that went away.
Look up the word "discriminate"; you will see why blanket "anti-discrimination" laws are a really bad idea. To discriminate is our ability to choose between two or more things based on our own criteria. That we don't like a person's criteria for choosing should not and does not give us the right to force them to choose differently.
Not to say Microsoft's policy isn't idiotic, but I believe they have a right to it. If they want to alienate gays and lesbians, as well as anybody who feels strongly about gays and lesbians being treated fairly, then that is their right. To force Microsoft to sell a service to someone they don't want to sell a service to, though, for whatever reason, is wrong. It's just as wrong as if the government forced me to sell my truck to an anti-semite when I didn't want to.
Should coercing a private party in such a manner be acceptable in any case? Regardless of wether or not we like what makes them different, it is not right to force that upon someone else. Even if that someone else is a big, giant, evil company like Microsoft. Frankly, even equal employment laws disturb me, but it was necessary because a large group of people were being discriminated against on a far reaching scale in such a way that prevented them from making a living. That is quite a bit different from refusing to take someone's money, for any reason.
TV's these days come with handy-dandy VGA/DVI/S-Video inputs. With adapters, it is usually trivial to hook most any semi-modern (less than say, 10 years old) to most any game-worthy PC. Some exceptions exist, of course, but for the most part it holds true.
They also make these handy-dandy wireless keyboards and mice, the most you'll need beyond that is something flat to put your mouse on, and you can play your PC games from the couch too!
It's about as complicated as setting up a console; is about as noisy as one; and you can do a lot more with it, so why not?
I bought all three Freezepop albums after hearing them on Guitar Hero.:D
They've been in both Guitar Hero 1&2, and in Rock Band, and I haven't played them enough to know but I wouldn't be surprised if they were in Guitar Hero: WT and Rock Band 2.
They rock, and yeah, fun as heck to play. They even had "Trogdor the Burninator" in GH1, THAT was awesome. Rock Band has the Timmy song from South Park, again, fun as heck to play.
Frankly, the songs I tend to skip are the songs I've heard, unless they are a favorite. These games bring lesser known songs to the forefront, breathe new life into old songs that don't get the play time they used to - even on "classic" radio (some of those old David Bowie songs are wicked hard!), and make goofy internet or TV songs notorious among a wider audience.
Add to that the fact that people are more than willing to buy new songs just to play them, and it's a gold mine. I mean, if people were going to do it the old fashioned way by getting a cheap guitar and some sheet music, they'd save a heck of a lot of money on these games, and hardly a cent would go to the Music Cartel. Instead, they have the money floodgates sitting here and they are trying to get them stopped up.
There are so many ways to increase your revenue with these songs it is rediculous, and the Music Industry can't seem to figure out even one of them. In fact, they seem to be mad about how many options they have to make more money. Of course, they don't see it that way.
Because, apparently a lot of the design specs in DDR are patented by Rambus (and were part of the old Rambus ram, which is what made it so fast). Rambus was involved in the creation of said design specs, or at least the over-arching standards that led to DDR, and didn't tell anybody that they had patents on these things.
If this is the case, then anybody who has ever sold or will sell DDR ram owes Rambus cash money. This will cause the price of DDR to skyrocket (probably about the same as the old, now defunct Rambus memory), negatively impacting anybody who buys ram in the future.
If that sounds dirty to you, then your Scumbag Tactics Detector(tm) is working within normal operating limits. The FTC's detector is working as well, which is why they brought the suit. Unfortunately they used a weak, and frankly confusing, argument and that is what has been struck down.
The courts don't seem to be saying Rambus is right, they seem to be saying the FTC is a little dense.
That's because climate change is a fact. There is no question that the climate changes (at least to anybody who is remotely interested in the subject, there will always be ignorant people who are told it doesn't exist and so believe it), it has been happening for millions of years and will continue to happen, with or without human intervention. In fact, about 500 years ago or so (too lazy to look it up, heh) it was significantly warmer than it is today, on a global level. Some 2 or 3 degrees on average if memory serves. Some years before that (again, too lazy to look up) there was a mini ice age, which killed a lot of people and allowed for new migration patterns.
The fact is, Volcanoes are still far and away the #1 producer of greenhouse gasses on the planet, human activity doesn't really come close. The question, is whether human activity is pushing the climate change "over the edge" to a point where it can't recover and swing back. Is the CO2 we produce enough to nudge the greenhouse effect too far? Is deforestation reducing earth's reflectivity enough that temperature will rise to the point that it causes a chain reaction of polar melting, further reducing earth's overall reflectivity and spiraling out of control?
Those are the questions for Global Warming, and those are the questions largely ignored by the media in favor of mass histeria doom and gloom. The fact is, scientists aren't sure one way or another really, they've got some ideas and in some models it looks bleak, but others not so much.
Frankly, it's much, much, much easier to find information you are looking for in an eBook. Being digital, they a generally searcheable, which is fantastic. Also, depending on exactly what you are doing, it can be much easier to have the book on a monitor and your work right in front of you. None of that is as easy with a textbook. Trust me, I've used textbooks with a PDF option. I don't even like PDF's and I think it's really nice to have the option.
Also, if you just need to -read- the material, an eBook in an eBook reader is infinately more convenient than a large textbook (you know, standard 700+ page books;)). While the tactile feel is nice in a book, the awkwardness of a large textbook completely negates it and then some, in my opinion.
Plus, have you read on an eInk device? It's like reading paper, only it's small and compact and has a massive geek factor, they rock. Mine doesn't let me search, only flip to certain sections, so searchability is about the same as a textbook, but others like the new Kindle let you search. I'm personally waiting for the Plastic Logic device that has a massive 8x11 screen, perfect for technical documents.
Erm...what exactly were you thinking democracy was supposed to be?
America is not, and never has been, a democracy. Even before the Constitution was written, it was a Republic. We have democratic elements to our Republic, but it is not a democracy.
Democracy, put simply, is majority rule. What the founding fathers realised though, being the astute scholars that some of them were, was that when the "majority" gets to be over about 500 people or so, it breaks down into mob rule, and the minority doesn't simply get over-ruled, they get trampled over.
Now, a Republic is representative rule. You could quite easily create a feudal republic if you wanted, where feudal lords pick representatives to represent them in government. Perhaps if that were the case you'd more easilly recognize the difference between a republic and a democracy.
The fact is, the fairest way to select representatives for large numbers of people in a system intended to be by, for, and of the people is by democratic means. There is a single democratic election to select local city, state, senate, and congressional representatives, and there is a two-stage election for the President. The people vote (democratic) for the electoral college representatives (republic) who then vote for the President (democratic republic). The third branch, the judicial, we get very little say in who gets to be there, and that is another balancing measure.
Get it now? The whole purpose of the system is to even out the power, to prevent Mob Rule. Large population centers get more of an influence than small population centers, because that is fair. However, they do not get a proportional amount of influence to their size, because that would allow them to overpower the small population centers, which is not fair.
It's the same reason the Congress is split in two, with one half having nothing at all to do with population (Senate, each state gets 2 representatives, no more and no less) and one that is tied to population (the House of Representatives, representatives determined by population). Again the whole point of giving a small state more power per-person than a large state is to allow it to defend itself against mob rule. And it works well.
Large population centers still drive the majority of decisions in government, and it is more likely the guy who gets all the big states will be President, but it's not a guarantee in any case because the power is adjusted to protect the minority from the majority.
You do realise that is a server service for your network, not an alternative update service from Microsoft to recieve patches as soon as they are produced, right?
WSUS allows you to apply Microsoft patches to your network whenever you want - AFTER they have been released. You still have to wait until Patch Tuesday before you actually get your hands on the patches. The main purpose of WSUS is to allow corporate users to test new patches in their environment before deploying them to the computers on the network. You basically point the Windows Update client to your server running WSUS, instead of to the Microsoft update site.
In other words, WSUS will allow you to delay your patches indefinitely after they are released by Microsoft, but it will not help you get your patches any faster than Patch Tuesday.
So they claim them as their own, saying that the bible talked about a big beast, behemoth, and that this must have been a dinosaur that was then killed in the great 40 day flood (which the being that willed the entire universe in existence in a day had to use to get rid of his giants).
You've obviously gotten this like, 5th hand or something, and not bothered to check your own information. Behemoth is described in the Hebrew as having a tail like a cedar tree. How many elephants have a tail like a cedar tree? There is no living creature that fits all the features of the Behemoth, however there are a large number of plant eating dinosaurs who do fit the description perfectly.
The ONLY explanation for a creature like this, if you're being honest with yourself when you read it, is a dinosaur. Perhaps all that was left at the time were bones buried in the dirt, but it was good enough to go "oh snap, this is a huge frickin monster!"
Same with Leviathan, the name itself is a transliteration of the Hebrew word for dragon, or monster. It is described as a massive sea creature, and you know what? We still have massive sea creatures today, only a few, but they are still around. And there are a number of sea dwelling dinosaurs and other large animals that fit the description well. A big whale does not.
I can't tell you if the Bible is true or not, because there is no way to verify it in any of the parts that mean anything; it's a faith thing. It isn't science.
But that doesn't mean science trumps religion, that line of reasoning is just as ignorant of things spiritual as thinking religion disqualifies science is ignorant of things scientific. They are apples and oranges, they can interact to a degree but they are not related to each other. The way they interact for me, is I can't see anything in the universe existing without a God entity. Nobody has explained to me how the universe could come into existance without an outside action of some kind, and the only thing that could act outside of our universe must be, in my mind, some kind of God.
Also, the fact that everything in the universe follows set rules, and does not deviate implies to me a God who set the ground rules. We haven't figured out exactly what all the rules are, and some rules we are finding are very, very strange, but the rules are still there, and they are still followed explicitly. Our math would not work were it not so.
So, try not to be a know-it-all about something you don't know about, mm-kay? "I read this in a book, and I believe it without any critical thought on my part, so I'm smarter than you!" is not a good starting point for an intelligent discussion.
If you are again trying to connect to your exchange server directly over the internet then you are using your netbook wrong, and your exchange server will be owned real soon now 8)
You're a little under-informed about the capabilities of exchange and outlook, if you think that is the case.
You see, Echange has this cool feature called "Outlook Web Access", or OWA for short. This is for checking your exchange email over the web. You secure it like any other web facing server. Now, Outlook has this cool feature that lets it grab your email over http. See where I'm going with this? You put the OWA address in for your HTTP mail and voila, you've got your exchange email wherever you have an internet connection, and it is quite secure.
None of that SSH tunnel BS to mess with, you just open outlook and it works (if properly configured, of course).
This is a small example of what you can do with an exchange server and outlook, yeah there are alternatives but nothing out there has the same capabilities. Now if you don't use most of the power of the exchange/outlook combo, sure an OSS solution is great, but if you use the features you need the big daddy. FYI, a lot of Big Companies, that a lot of people work for, make use of those features.
And that being said, nuke simulation has little to do with quantum chemistry anyways.
So why did you bring it up? The parent didn't, I don't get what you are saying when you ask a question, relate it to the parent's post, and then say it is irrelavent. You might as well have asked him if he knows how tight the car you drive corners, if you are going to say it is irrelavent anyway.
And, do you realize how much processing power 20 petaflops is? That's insane, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. That is well into the territory of the number of molecules in a small object. There are roughly 6.022x10^23 entities per mole, and at 2x10^16 calculations per second, simulating what happens in the first few instances of a nuclear explosion in a realistic time frame becomes more feasable. It would still be slow as all getout, and the most you'd ever want to calculate is less than a second for the individual atoms in a small object, but it's in the realm of possibility. You're right about square miles, but getting into that range there isn't really a need for tracking individual molecules, so that point seems moot to me.
Also, they so far have not needed to calculate what a nuclear bomb does for each atom (obviously, since it has been nigh impossible), and they probably won't ever need to really. You can study waves and energy effects in great detail, and simulate them accurately, without needing to know where each and every atom goes. This will simply let them be more precise and accurate, as well as speedy.
Back in the Day, when RAID was new, those massive server hard drives were the size of your walk-in closet, used robots to run the platters, and cost $100k+ for a score or two of megabytes.
With RAID, you could put together 20ish 1mb disks and get MORE performance for your 20mb for well below half of what the Expensive drive costs.
There IS no such thing as an "Expensive" drive anymore, RAID killed them. The equivalent today would be building a giant, 40tb drive the size of a small desk. It just doesn't work, and it'd cost about 10x what putting 40 1tb drives together in a RAID would cost.
Basically, if you can RAID it, it isn't an Expensive disk in the same sense as when the term was coined. $400 for the fastest 128gb SSD hard drive is cheap man, crazy cheap.
Apparently, he's confusing two different techniques, and Gutmann claims that, of course it won't work the way he's doing it. He's doing it wrong. You can't use the Magnetic Force Microscope to perform an error cancelling read, it doesn't work. The success rate is - surprise! - less than 1%, exactly like TFA claims.
Also, mentioned in Gutmann's epilogue, TFA confuses an MFM and a scanning electron microscope. They are not the same thing. An MFM reads magnectic levels, it doesn't "see" electrons like a SEL will.
In any case, Gutmann agrees with TFA but for very different reasons. The new encoding techniques nullify the MFM. There is no point using it because it won't give you any usefull information on a modern drive. Also, the extremely high densities mean the only practical and reliable method of recovery is basic error-cancelling techniques, and that's only practical after one wipe. Even then, it's iffy at best.
So yes, a single wipe is probably all you need. But who knows what data recovery techniques will be invented? A single pass is probably good enough right now, but 3-4 random passes is pretty much a sure thing, regardless of future techniques.
They talk about "light" as being very different from "radio" even though they're both EM radiation, and they talk about "using light" as very different from "using fiber optics", even though it's really just a difference of medium.
Technically, you are correct that light is light (be it radio or visible or ultraviolet or whatever) and that, at least in the simplest terms, the only difference between fiber optics and open air light communication. However, the technical difficulties involved in using visible light in communication vs radio waves are incredible. Nobody has done it before and the reason is because it is HARD.
The very reason fiber optics exist is to overcome the challenges of using visible light as communication. Because of the higher frequency than radio or IRDA (and no, IRDA is not visible light, it's not that far down the spectrum, but it isn't the same thing) visible light is able to pack significantly more data in the signal than radio technology. So if they are able to create something that is effectively fiber optics without the fiber, it's a huge leap forward.
Yes it's LOS, there's no getting around that, but there will be plenty of applications. Imagine putting big light recievers on the tops of a few hills, instead of running fiber for miles and miles, which can be cut at any time? Up here in alaska we have probably close to 600 miles of fiber running straight up along the highway, north to south. Landslides and other natural disasters break the cables on a regular basis. Imagine if we could just slap a couple dozen receivers/transmitters along the path and be done with it?
Don't poopoo a new technology when you don't understand why it might be difficult. It makes you look dumb. It's like saying an airplane is no big deal, because it's basically just a car with wings and a propellor.
Perhaps it's the phosphoric acid that is leeching calcium from your bones?
You know, diet sodas have just as much of that as non-diet. Plus, you're pumping your gut full of "fake" sugar, and who knows how that is jacking your body. Probably nowhere near as bad as HFCS, but still.
Plus, if you plan to do any kind of exercise regularly (which you should) the carbon dioxide in the soda is sabatoging your aerobic energy process. Feel the burn baby! And for no good reason.
So, just because diet soda has no sugar doesn't mean it isn't a horrible, horrible thing to put in your body. It's just not as bad as regular sugar.
BTW, I HATE the new commercials the Corn Grower's Association is putting out. They are trying to make high fructose corn syrup sound healthy, because it has the same calories as sugar. Like sugar isn't bad for you too? They put so much HFCS in everything your blood sugar is sure to spike, and then crash dangerously when your blood insulin spikes to compensate. And of course, it all goes straight to fat. I don't know for sure but I'd wager HFCS is one of the biggest contributors to obesity, heart disease, and diabetis.
Bastards. "Fine in moderation" would be great if they added it to anything in moderation. About 60g of sugars in a "medium" 21 oz soda. That's not moderation by a long stretch, and that's NORMAL.
Social Co-existance? Why in God's name would you need to learn that at college? Those are life skills, and can be learned in *drumroll* life. Sure, college is a great place to do that, but I would not say the social attributes gained in college translate 100% to working life, more like 50% or less. There is a lot of stuff kids do in college that would get you fired in a heartbeat at a real honest to goodness job.
Social co-existance is not a good reason to go to college, IMHO. Apparently they teach that at some schools anyway (which is completely retarded).
Er, that's kinda the reason the DOD wipe spec requires three wipes at the bare minimum. One all 0's, one all 1's, and one a random sequence of 1's and 0's.
I don't remember where the paper was for this, but the reason is that when the magnetic arms write a 1 to the disc, it doesn't actually write a full 1, it's more like a.9, and when it gets written back to 0 it drops it to 0.1 (from a full 1). A significantly more sensitive magnetic reader can see for exampe a 0.8 as a 0.8, instead of picking it up as a 1 like your standard harddrive reader arm will. So by analyzing the pattern of charges on the disc, the data can be successfully re-built.
With that accuracy, they can go back many, many writes to re-build the data. It is expensive, and dificult, but it is doable. That is how data-recovery services work, and it's also why they cost upwards of $5,000 to retrieve your data.
They tell you not to write over your harddrive when you want data back because it is significantly easier to re-build data that has only been written over once or twice, not because it is impossible to rebuild data that has been written several times.
In fact, regular old data recovery software can get back stuff that has been written over once or twice. The only way I know of to completely eliminate the possibility of retrieval is to de-magnetize the drive. Though there is a program that will wipe it 30 times randomly, and that's pretty darn close to impossible to recover.
Er, well, since this could lead to significantly more efficient Fusion, and other applications...
Yes?
I mean, it's news for nerds, right? It's a nerd problem that has taken 100 years to solve, right? Of all the things that show up on the front page, this is one of the articles that MOST deserve to be there, not least.
Er, did you actually read the article you linked to?
Bill gates never says he said "640k should be good enough" in that article, and in fact he blames the 20 bit Intel architecture for creating the hard 640k limit. He does say he layed out the 640k for ram and 384k for hardware i/o in the software, but obviously he would have had to if DOS were going to match up with the addressing scheme of the Intel chip, and since he was only mentioning it in passing I would not expect him to go into that kind of detail. It's not much detail, but he only talks about the addressing for two sentances.
Maybe you should actually read your own sources before you call people inconsistant? It seemed pretty darn consistant to me.
BTW, got add the disclaimer that I am very much NOT an MS fanboy (I have to use XP at work, but I run linux at home), I just don't appreciate someone - anyone - being called inconsistant when they are being perfectly consistant. At least with what evidence you used, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, you read the part about them both being Dems, right?
When it says "Rep. Mike Doogan", it means "Representative Mike Doogan", not "Republican Mike Doogan". Usually on T.V. they put a (D) or (R) at the end of the name to help folk like you who can't read goodly enough to unnerstand such thins even tho dey are writ down in da very same set'nce.
The fact is, the anonymous reporter has absolutely no right to anonymity. She has the right to POST (publish, speak, etc.) anonymously, but there is no guaranteed protection of her identity beyond what she is able to provide for herself.
What those cases of journalists protecting their anonymous sources proved a few years back was not a right of anonymity of an individual, but rather the lack of the government's right to force someone to reveal an anonymous source. It's a little different, but if you are able to determine a source's identity without forcing the information out of a journalist (or forcing it out of any private citizen, for that matter) beyond what can legally be requested, then it is perfectly legal for the government or anybody else to "oust" them.
Same thing with posting, speaking, or publishing anonymously. It is up to the individual to protect their own identity, and if they can't get enough assistance to adequately protect themselves from being outed, and a potentially ruined or damaged career (probably the latter in this case, she attacked a well liked member of her own party after all), perhaps the individual should think twice before doing so?
The only real question here, is whether or not Mike Doogan used State resources to settle a personal matter. That is (potentially) an abuse of power which could get him kicked out of office. Personally, I would be very careful about how I did something like that, but who knows what politicians think when they have a bit of power and a few resources at their disposal.
Heinlein came up with "flatcats".
"Tribbles" are an aweful lot like "flatcats".
Paramount was worried about getting sued for stealing Heinlein's idea, and Heinlein responded: "I have no patent on small furry aliens!"
In other words, Heinlein was not a douchebag like Paramount feared.
- Advertisers want people with lots of money (affluent).
- People with lots of money tend to be college educated and/or intelligent (geeks/professionals).
- Therefore you need to develop shows that these persons find mentally challenging.
Actually, it breaks down like this:
- Advertisers want people with disposable income (irresponsible with cash).
- People with disposable income tend to be spending someone else's money (teenagers/college students).
- Therefore you need to develop shows that these persons find entertaining (ie utter shite).
I don't have hard facts in front of me, and I'm too lazy to get them, but I do believe it has been well established that the #1 consumers in the country are 15-25 year olds. That's why everybody wants to tap that market, they are all spending Mommy and Daddy's money. Mommy and Daddy don't even need to have a lot, the teenagers are just spending whatever extra they have, making them the most powerful consumer bracket for marketers to target.
Hence, the totally lame move to this idiotic "SyFy" name, and probably a further dumbing down of content to appeal to this market. To be honest, I used to love the SciFi channel, but I haven't watched it in years and it looks like I won't be watching it much in the future either.
Apparently he played the frickin movie (young girl undressing and performing sexual acts) for them.
Dumbass deserves to go to jail for a long time, half the charge should be stupidity IMO.
At that point, refusing to give the encryption key, or at least a copy of the unencrypted data, is obstruction of justice and has nothing to do with self-incrimination. He already incriminated himself, he can't un-incriminate himself is what the judge is saying.
That is true for employment and government related services. However between private parties (and Microsoft is a private party) that is not true in almost every case. In those cases where private services ARE regulated in this manner, it is almost exclusively for gender and race relations, not sexuality.
I'm not sure what California's laws are in this regard, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were more extreme regarding anti-discrimination, but in general discrimination for most any reason is a right among private parties, and it would be a sad day for our freedom if that went away.
Look up the word "discriminate"; you will see why blanket "anti-discrimination" laws are a really bad idea. To discriminate is our ability to choose between two or more things based on our own criteria. That we don't like a person's criteria for choosing should not and does not give us the right to force them to choose differently.
Not to say Microsoft's policy isn't idiotic, but I believe they have a right to it. If they want to alienate gays and lesbians, as well as anybody who feels strongly about gays and lesbians being treated fairly, then that is their right. To force Microsoft to sell a service to someone they don't want to sell a service to, though, for whatever reason, is wrong. It's just as wrong as if the government forced me to sell my truck to an anti-semite when I didn't want to.
Should coercing a private party in such a manner be acceptable in any case? Regardless of wether or not we like what makes them different, it is not right to force that upon someone else. Even if that someone else is a big, giant, evil company like Microsoft. Frankly, even equal employment laws disturb me, but it was necessary because a large group of people were being discriminated against on a far reaching scale in such a way that prevented them from making a living. That is quite a bit different from refusing to take someone's money, for any reason.
TV's these days come with handy-dandy VGA/DVI/S-Video inputs. With adapters, it is usually trivial to hook most any semi-modern (less than say, 10 years old) to most any game-worthy PC. Some exceptions exist, of course, but for the most part it holds true.
They also make these handy-dandy wireless keyboards and mice, the most you'll need beyond that is something flat to put your mouse on, and you can play your PC games from the couch too!
It's about as complicated as setting up a console; is about as noisy as one; and you can do a lot more with it, so why not?
I bought all three Freezepop albums after hearing them on Guitar Hero. :D
They've been in both Guitar Hero 1&2, and in Rock Band, and I haven't played them enough to know but I wouldn't be surprised if they were in Guitar Hero: WT and Rock Band 2.
They rock, and yeah, fun as heck to play. They even had "Trogdor the Burninator" in GH1, THAT was awesome. Rock Band has the Timmy song from South Park, again, fun as heck to play.
Frankly, the songs I tend to skip are the songs I've heard, unless they are a favorite. These games bring lesser known songs to the forefront, breathe new life into old songs that don't get the play time they used to - even on "classic" radio (some of those old David Bowie songs are wicked hard!), and make goofy internet or TV songs notorious among a wider audience.
Add to that the fact that people are more than willing to buy new songs just to play them, and it's a gold mine. I mean, if people were going to do it the old fashioned way by getting a cheap guitar and some sheet music, they'd save a heck of a lot of money on these games, and hardly a cent would go to the Music Cartel. Instead, they have the money floodgates sitting here and they are trying to get them stopped up.
There are so many ways to increase your revenue with these songs it is rediculous, and the Music Industry can't seem to figure out even one of them. In fact, they seem to be mad about how many options they have to make more money. Of course, they don't see it that way.
Losers.
Because, apparently a lot of the design specs in DDR are patented by Rambus (and were part of the old Rambus ram, which is what made it so fast). Rambus was involved in the creation of said design specs, or at least the over-arching standards that led to DDR, and didn't tell anybody that they had patents on these things.
If this is the case, then anybody who has ever sold or will sell DDR ram owes Rambus cash money. This will cause the price of DDR to skyrocket (probably about the same as the old, now defunct Rambus memory), negatively impacting anybody who buys ram in the future.
If that sounds dirty to you, then your Scumbag Tactics Detector(tm) is working within normal operating limits. The FTC's detector is working as well, which is why they brought the suit. Unfortunately they used a weak, and frankly confusing, argument and that is what has been struck down.
The courts don't seem to be saying Rambus is right, they seem to be saying the FTC is a little dense.
That's because climate change is a fact. There is no question that the climate changes (at least to anybody who is remotely interested in the subject, there will always be ignorant people who are told it doesn't exist and so believe it), it has been happening for millions of years and will continue to happen, with or without human intervention. In fact, about 500 years ago or so (too lazy to look it up, heh) it was significantly warmer than it is today, on a global level. Some 2 or 3 degrees on average if memory serves. Some years before that (again, too lazy to look up) there was a mini ice age, which killed a lot of people and allowed for new migration patterns.
The fact is, Volcanoes are still far and away the #1 producer of greenhouse gasses on the planet, human activity doesn't really come close. The question, is whether human activity is pushing the climate change "over the edge" to a point where it can't recover and swing back. Is the CO2 we produce enough to nudge the greenhouse effect too far? Is deforestation reducing earth's reflectivity enough that temperature will rise to the point that it causes a chain reaction of polar melting, further reducing earth's overall reflectivity and spiraling out of control?
Those are the questions for Global Warming, and those are the questions largely ignored by the media in favor of mass histeria doom and gloom. The fact is, scientists aren't sure one way or another really, they've got some ideas and in some models it looks bleak, but others not so much.
Skeptical is not a bad position to have.
Frankly, it's much, much, much easier to find information you are looking for in an eBook. Being digital, they a generally searcheable, which is fantastic. Also, depending on exactly what you are doing, it can be much easier to have the book on a monitor and your work right in front of you. None of that is as easy with a textbook. Trust me, I've used textbooks with a PDF option. I don't even like PDF's and I think it's really nice to have the option.
Also, if you just need to -read- the material, an eBook in an eBook reader is infinately more convenient than a large textbook (you know, standard 700+ page books ;)). While the tactile feel is nice in a book, the awkwardness of a large textbook completely negates it and then some, in my opinion.
Plus, have you read on an eInk device? It's like reading paper, only it's small and compact and has a massive geek factor, they rock. Mine doesn't let me search, only flip to certain sections, so searchability is about the same as a textbook, but others like the new Kindle let you search. I'm personally waiting for the Plastic Logic device that has a massive 8x11 screen, perfect for technical documents.
Cheers!
Erm...what exactly were you thinking democracy was supposed to be?
America is not, and never has been, a democracy. Even before the Constitution was written, it was a Republic. We have democratic elements to our Republic, but it is not a democracy.
Democracy, put simply, is majority rule. What the founding fathers realised though, being the astute scholars that some of them were, was that when the "majority" gets to be over about 500 people or so, it breaks down into mob rule, and the minority doesn't simply get over-ruled, they get trampled over.
Now, a Republic is representative rule. You could quite easily create a feudal republic if you wanted, where feudal lords pick representatives to represent them in government. Perhaps if that were the case you'd more easilly recognize the difference between a republic and a democracy.
The fact is, the fairest way to select representatives for large numbers of people in a system intended to be by, for, and of the people is by democratic means. There is a single democratic election to select local city, state, senate, and congressional representatives, and there is a two-stage election for the President. The people vote (democratic) for the electoral college representatives (republic) who then vote for the President (democratic republic). The third branch, the judicial, we get very little say in who gets to be there, and that is another balancing measure.
Get it now? The whole purpose of the system is to even out the power, to prevent Mob Rule. Large population centers get more of an influence than small population centers, because that is fair. However, they do not get a proportional amount of influence to their size, because that would allow them to overpower the small population centers, which is not fair.
It's the same reason the Congress is split in two, with one half having nothing at all to do with population (Senate, each state gets 2 representatives, no more and no less) and one that is tied to population (the House of Representatives, representatives determined by population). Again the whole point of giving a small state more power per-person than a large state is to allow it to defend itself against mob rule. And it works well.
Large population centers still drive the majority of decisions in government, and it is more likely the guy who gets all the big states will be President, but it's not a guarantee in any case because the power is adjusted to protect the minority from the majority.
You do realise that is a server service for your network, not an alternative update service from Microsoft to recieve patches as soon as they are produced, right?
WSUS allows you to apply Microsoft patches to your network whenever you want - AFTER they have been released. You still have to wait until Patch Tuesday before you actually get your hands on the patches. The main purpose of WSUS is to allow corporate users to test new patches in their environment before deploying them to the computers on the network. You basically point the Windows Update client to your server running WSUS, instead of to the Microsoft update site.
In other words, WSUS will allow you to delay your patches indefinitely after they are released by Microsoft, but it will not help you get your patches any faster than Patch Tuesday.
So they claim them as their own, saying that the bible talked about a big beast, behemoth, and that this must have been a dinosaur that was then killed in the great 40 day flood (which the being that willed the entire universe in existence in a day had to use to get rid of his giants).
You've obviously gotten this like, 5th hand or something, and not bothered to check your own information. Behemoth is described in the Hebrew as having a tail like a cedar tree. How many elephants have a tail like a cedar tree? There is no living creature that fits all the features of the Behemoth, however there are a large number of plant eating dinosaurs who do fit the description perfectly.
The ONLY explanation for a creature like this, if you're being honest with yourself when you read it, is a dinosaur. Perhaps all that was left at the time were bones buried in the dirt, but it was good enough to go "oh snap, this is a huge frickin monster!"
Same with Leviathan, the name itself is a transliteration of the Hebrew word for dragon, or monster. It is described as a massive sea creature, and you know what? We still have massive sea creatures today, only a few, but they are still around. And there are a number of sea dwelling dinosaurs and other large animals that fit the description well. A big whale does not.
I can't tell you if the Bible is true or not, because there is no way to verify it in any of the parts that mean anything; it's a faith thing. It isn't science.
But that doesn't mean science trumps religion, that line of reasoning is just as ignorant of things spiritual as thinking religion disqualifies science is ignorant of things scientific. They are apples and oranges, they can interact to a degree but they are not related to each other. The way they interact for me, is I can't see anything in the universe existing without a God entity. Nobody has explained to me how the universe could come into existance without an outside action of some kind, and the only thing that could act outside of our universe must be, in my mind, some kind of God.
Also, the fact that everything in the universe follows set rules, and does not deviate implies to me a God who set the ground rules. We haven't figured out exactly what all the rules are, and some rules we are finding are very, very strange, but the rules are still there, and they are still followed explicitly. Our math would not work were it not so.
So, try not to be a know-it-all about something you don't know about, mm-kay? "I read this in a book, and I believe it without any critical thought on my part, so I'm smarter than you!" is not a good starting point for an intelligent discussion.
k thx bai
If you are again trying to connect to your exchange server directly over the internet then you are using your netbook wrong, and your exchange server will be owned real soon now 8)
You're a little under-informed about the capabilities of exchange and outlook, if you think that is the case.
You see, Echange has this cool feature called "Outlook Web Access", or OWA for short. This is for checking your exchange email over the web. You secure it like any other web facing server. Now, Outlook has this cool feature that lets it grab your email over http. See where I'm going with this? You put the OWA address in for your HTTP mail and voila, you've got your exchange email wherever you have an internet connection, and it is quite secure.
None of that SSH tunnel BS to mess with, you just open outlook and it works (if properly configured, of course).
This is a small example of what you can do with an exchange server and outlook, yeah there are alternatives but nothing out there has the same capabilities. Now if you don't use most of the power of the exchange/outlook combo, sure an OSS solution is great, but if you use the features you need the big daddy. FYI, a lot of Big Companies, that a lot of people work for, make use of those features.
And that being said, nuke simulation has little to do with quantum chemistry anyways.
So why did you bring it up? The parent didn't, I don't get what you are saying when you ask a question, relate it to the parent's post, and then say it is irrelavent. You might as well have asked him if he knows how tight the car you drive corners, if you are going to say it is irrelavent anyway.
And, do you realize how much processing power 20 petaflops is? That's insane, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. That is well into the territory of the number of molecules in a small object. There are roughly 6.022x10^23 entities per mole, and at 2x10^16 calculations per second, simulating what happens in the first few instances of a nuclear explosion in a realistic time frame becomes more feasable. It would still be slow as all getout, and the most you'd ever want to calculate is less than a second for the individual atoms in a small object, but it's in the realm of possibility. You're right about square miles, but getting into that range there isn't really a need for tracking individual molecules, so that point seems moot to me.
Also, they so far have not needed to calculate what a nuclear bomb does for each atom (obviously, since it has been nigh impossible), and they probably won't ever need to really. You can study waves and energy effects in great detail, and simulate them accurately, without needing to know where each and every atom goes. This will simply let them be more precise and accurate, as well as speedy.
Back in the Day, when RAID was new, those massive server hard drives were the size of your walk-in closet, used robots to run the platters, and cost $100k+ for a score or two of megabytes.
With RAID, you could put together 20ish 1mb disks and get MORE performance for your 20mb for well below half of what the Expensive drive costs.
There IS no such thing as an "Expensive" drive anymore, RAID killed them. The equivalent today would be building a giant, 40tb drive the size of a small desk. It just doesn't work, and it'd cost about 10x what putting 40 1tb drives together in a RAID would cost.
Basically, if you can RAID it, it isn't an Expensive disk in the same sense as when the term was coined. $400 for the fastest 128gb SSD hard drive is cheap man, crazy cheap.
The last server windows was the windows 2003
I think you mean Windows Server 2008, the desktop version of which was *drumroll* Vista.
2003 was the server version of XP, and came out about a year after XP, just like 2k8 and Vista.
In the epilogue of http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_del.html, Peter Gutmann basically calls the author of TFA a rtrd.
Apparently, he's confusing two different techniques, and Gutmann claims that, of course it won't work the way he's doing it. He's doing it wrong. You can't use the Magnetic Force Microscope to perform an error cancelling read, it doesn't work. The success rate is - surprise! - less than 1%, exactly like TFA claims.
Also, mentioned in Gutmann's epilogue, TFA confuses an MFM and a scanning electron microscope. They are not the same thing. An MFM reads magnectic levels, it doesn't "see" electrons like a SEL will.
In any case, Gutmann agrees with TFA but for very different reasons. The new encoding techniques nullify the MFM. There is no point using it because it won't give you any usefull information on a modern drive. Also, the extremely high densities mean the only practical and reliable method of recovery is basic error-cancelling techniques, and that's only practical after one wipe. Even then, it's iffy at best.
So yes, a single wipe is probably all you need. But who knows what data recovery techniques will be invented? A single pass is probably good enough right now, but 3-4 random passes is pretty much a sure thing, regardless of future techniques.
They talk about "light" as being very different from "radio" even though they're both EM radiation, and they talk about "using light" as very different from "using fiber optics", even though it's really just a difference of medium.
Technically, you are correct that light is light (be it radio or visible or ultraviolet or whatever) and that, at least in the simplest terms, the only difference between fiber optics and open air light communication. However, the technical difficulties involved in using visible light in communication vs radio waves are incredible. Nobody has done it before and the reason is because it is HARD.
The very reason fiber optics exist is to overcome the challenges of using visible light as communication. Because of the higher frequency than radio or IRDA (and no, IRDA is not visible light, it's not that far down the spectrum, but it isn't the same thing) visible light is able to pack significantly more data in the signal than radio technology. So if they are able to create something that is effectively fiber optics without the fiber, it's a huge leap forward.
Yes it's LOS, there's no getting around that, but there will be plenty of applications. Imagine putting big light recievers on the tops of a few hills, instead of running fiber for miles and miles, which can be cut at any time? Up here in alaska we have probably close to 600 miles of fiber running straight up along the highway, north to south. Landslides and other natural disasters break the cables on a regular basis. Imagine if we could just slap a couple dozen receivers/transmitters along the path and be done with it?
Don't poopoo a new technology when you don't understand why it might be difficult. It makes you look dumb. It's like saying an airplane is no big deal, because it's basically just a car with wings and a propellor.
Same concept, differen't subject.
Perhaps it's the phosphoric acid that is leeching calcium from your bones?
You know, diet sodas have just as much of that as non-diet. Plus, you're pumping your gut full of "fake" sugar, and who knows how that is jacking your body. Probably nowhere near as bad as HFCS, but still.
Plus, if you plan to do any kind of exercise regularly (which you should) the carbon dioxide in the soda is sabatoging your aerobic energy process. Feel the burn baby! And for no good reason.
So, just because diet soda has no sugar doesn't mean it isn't a horrible, horrible thing to put in your body. It's just not as bad as regular sugar.
BTW, I HATE the new commercials the Corn Grower's Association is putting out. They are trying to make high fructose corn syrup sound healthy, because it has the same calories as sugar. Like sugar isn't bad for you too? They put so much HFCS in everything your blood sugar is sure to spike, and then crash dangerously when your blood insulin spikes to compensate. And of course, it all goes straight to fat. I don't know for sure but I'd wager HFCS is one of the biggest contributors to obesity, heart disease, and diabetis.
Bastards. "Fine in moderation" would be great if they added it to anything in moderation. About 60g of sugars in a "medium" 21 oz soda. That's not moderation by a long stretch, and that's NORMAL.
Social Co-existance? Why in God's name would you need to learn that at college? Those are life skills, and can be learned in *drumroll* life. Sure, college is a great place to do that, but I would not say the social attributes gained in college translate 100% to working life, more like 50% or less. There is a lot of stuff kids do in college that would get you fired in a heartbeat at a real honest to goodness job.
Social co-existance is not a good reason to go to college, IMHO. Apparently they teach that at some schools anyway (which is completely retarded).
Er, that's kinda the reason the DOD wipe spec requires three wipes at the bare minimum. One all 0's, one all 1's, and one a random sequence of 1's and 0's.
I don't remember where the paper was for this, but the reason is that when the magnetic arms write a 1 to the disc, it doesn't actually write a full 1, it's more like a .9, and when it gets written back to 0 it drops it to 0.1 (from a full 1). A significantly more sensitive magnetic reader can see for exampe a 0.8 as a 0.8, instead of picking it up as a 1 like your standard harddrive reader arm will. So by analyzing the pattern of charges on the disc, the data can be successfully re-built.
With that accuracy, they can go back many, many writes to re-build the data. It is expensive, and dificult, but it is doable. That is how data-recovery services work, and it's also why they cost upwards of $5,000 to retrieve your data.
They tell you not to write over your harddrive when you want data back because it is significantly easier to re-build data that has only been written over once or twice, not because it is impossible to rebuild data that has been written several times.
In fact, regular old data recovery software can get back stuff that has been written over once or twice. The only way I know of to completely eliminate the possibility of retrieval is to de-magnetize the drive. Though there is a program that will wipe it 30 times randomly, and that's pretty darn close to impossible to recover.
Er, well, since this could lead to significantly more efficient Fusion, and other applications...
Yes?
I mean, it's news for nerds, right? It's a nerd problem that has taken 100 years to solve, right? Of all the things that show up on the front page, this is one of the articles that MOST deserve to be there, not least.
Cheers.
I mean, do you really think Apple changed connectors when they went to FW800 just to make you buy more shit?
Yes. But then, I don't buy Apple anyway. :D
Er, did you actually read the article you linked to?
Bill gates never says he said "640k should be good enough" in that article, and in fact he blames the 20 bit Intel architecture for creating the hard 640k limit. He does say he layed out the 640k for ram and 384k for hardware i/o in the software, but obviously he would have had to if DOS were going to match up with the addressing scheme of the Intel chip, and since he was only mentioning it in passing I would not expect him to go into that kind of detail. It's not much detail, but he only talks about the addressing for two sentances.
Maybe you should actually read your own sources before you call people inconsistant? It seemed pretty darn consistant to me.
BTW, got add the disclaimer that I am very much NOT an MS fanboy (I have to use XP at work, but I run linux at home), I just don't appreciate someone - anyone - being called inconsistant when they are being perfectly consistant. At least with what evidence you used, anyway.