Good security (in this instance) is about preventing access, not preventing modification where access exists. If you wrote the unbreakable control code for your robosapien, I could simply replace the control card itself to gain control.
For your WiFi exmample, preventing the ability to connect to the robot via WiFi (by use of encryption and authentication or the like)
There a any number of viable methods to not carry fuel with them. Ramjets have been mentioned. Electromagnetic sails (or any kind of repulsor of an externally emitted wave/particle). The time-honored method of stealing velocity from other objects (gravity sling-shot).
And, in this case, if we are using a hypervelocity particle to repell a mass, then the particle could, presumably, be fired from a fixed point (Earth) to repel a ship.
The first is the east of backup/recovery/spawning new VMs. Want to play with altering ProgramA, no problem, let me just copy ProgramA's VM and start it up.
The other is less hardware. Perahps ProgramA and ProgramB don't want to run on the same server... they will generally run in seperate VMs fine. Perhaps ProgramA requires a different version of SQL, or some other dependancy; no problem in VMs. Things that were before going on underutilized servers can now be piled together one one.
And if it does get over-taxed, they are easy to move.
Digital information isn't books and pictures, and there's no reason it should be stored like it is.
Rather than files full of "archive media", which incurs regular conversion charges and risks both media degridation and "missing one" in the conversion resulting in it being unreadable: I recommend institutions work with live storage.
Setup a SAN, keep the data there, keep a live replica at another location. Backup the SAN on schedule.
As failures of storage media occur, they are detected (because the system is live, not dead stored disks) and can be replaced. Migration becomes "two SANs" not "thousands of tapes, flash drives, DVDs, and BlueRays".
Other than that: I can only suggest "give them three identical disks", so that partial failures of a disk can be recovered by comparing it to the other disks.
While HD FM does allow more programming per transmitter, each station still has the same licensed channel bandwidth/spacing so no frequencies are freed up. The stations can divide up the frequency among a number of ways. As defined by iBiquity these channels could be sub-divided into CD-quality (100 kbit/s), FM-quality (25-50 kbit/s), AM-quality (12 kbit/s), or Talk-quality (5 kbit/s) channels. Alternatively, they could broadcast one single channel at 300 kbit/s.
Even if some people agree that HD-FM can sound good, it's lossy compression. At its' best it'll never reach CD quality. CD's don't use data compression. To be fair, the lowest quality I generally listen to is about 200Kbit/s, and I'd call it "CD quality" to the point that the differences in matering on the source material are far more signifigant than the bitrate differences.
300Kbit/s, I would challenge most anyone to identify in blind tests... though I readily admit that would be mono on HD-Radio.
You claim CD-quality, just what are the sampling and data rates for "HD" radio??? Max data rate for a single FM station broadcasting HD under the current spec is 300Kbit/s, which is higher than Amazon's MP3 downloads.
Consumers are supposed to buy new equipment to save the broadcasters energy? I suppose I *could* make an argument to that effect, but I've certainly not said so. It is an advantage, though perhaps not directly to the consumers.
The digital advantage for operation at lower power levels frequently doesn't work in practice. Just look at all the people having trouble getting DTV reception in areas that supposedly have usable signal levels. As someone getting better DTV than analog signals, mileage apparently varies.
As Wikipedia has me understand, the current power output is 1% of analog? If there's a signal problem, perhaps 10% would solve it (speculating).
I'm not advocating HD, nor reproaching it. I'm merely correcting incorrect or unfair comments regarding it.
You make entierly untrue assumptions about HD radio, and unfair comparisons.
HD radio requires a fraction of the power of analog. HD radio requires a fraction of the bandwidth of analog. HD radio survives with 0% distortion over the majority of its receivable range. HD radio is capable of CD-quality sound. HD radio is capable of >2-channel encoding.
Similarly, your LP-vs-CD, while bordering on religious, is unfounded. Though LPs have a higher top frequency than standard CDs on their first play, both are well above human hearing.
The long-and-short is that the quality of playback on high-end equipment, when considered in light of the human ear, will be far more dependant on the mastering than on CD-vs-LP. And at that level we are usually discussing SACD and DVD-A... welcome to the 21st century.
And yes, I've heard CDs sound like live; and I've heard a number of SACDs that do. I suspect that you havent either because of a disparity in the mastering, a disparity in the playback equipment, or listener bias.
The experienced failure rate for the shuttle is 1%.
But both cases resulted no from "reasonable risk" but sheer negligence.
In the case of the Challenger, the shuttle had established lower limits of temperature-at-pad in which the designers considered a launch "safe". These limits were ignored and the shuttle was lauched despite freezing temperatures on the pad. This directly caused the loss of the vehicle.
In the case of the Columbia: the actual event (the loss of foam) doesn't appear to be negligence (as opposed to a discovered risk), but the fall was identified as a potential problem. At that point, no steps were performed to assess the damage and come up with a contingency (there was, for example, a fueld Soyuez in orbit (at the ISS) that might have been a viable escape vehicle).
If NASA had simply followed their own specs on the shuttle, and if they had performed a space-walk to assess damage *when a strike had already been identified*, we would have lost at most one shuttle and likely zero astronouts.
It depends on your definition of "improve"....and your gear....and your own abilities.
Most obvious Blueray supports 1080 pictures (DVD comes out at about 480) meaning more than four times the clarity. How good/large your screen is will determine how noticeable that is, and how good your vision is will determine if you notice even that, and whether you much care about image quality will determine if that's an "improvement".
Similarly, 7-channel "master-recording" (like DTS-Master) is not possible off DVD... well, it is but not if you want a full-length movie on there as well.
Will you notice? Depends on your ear, your speakers, and your ability/interest in the difference.
The good news is that the cost difference between DVD and Blueray will go away before you have to worry that they aren't making your favorite movie on DVD any more.
You should really read the book some time. If you had, you would have known that it is actually 6 books, published in pairs.
There is an unfortunate truth that there are multiple definitions of "book".
It is not uncommon for a single "book" (a non-anthology single story) to be divided. Sentances, paragraphs, chapters, and something larger (sometimes calls "parts", sometimes called "acts", and in some cases, like LOtR, "books").
I was not referring to this latter definition of "book" (by which James Clavel's "Shogun" is "three books"), but rather to the former.
Tolkien wrote a single story (out of his collections of partial works) called "The Lord of the Rings". Because of resource shortages, the publisher broke this singe story into three parts: "books" in the sense that they were bound seperately from one another.
From a literary perspective, this was a reasonably arbitray division.
When Jackon made movies, he originally planned two. At the suggestion of NewLine, he made three, and named them after thee titles of these three bound-volume (side note: Tolkien added these names *after* the publisher decided to split his single book up).
Jackson only loosely followed the break-points (breaking FotR later than the book does). Much like the publisher before him, this split was done out of pragmatism. Three movies because of the non-profitability of a single 12-hour movie, and broken where they were to give some sense of three-act arc to the individual movies.
Regardless, they are certainly not a trilogy (and I have read the books, and the Hobbit, and the Silmarilion).
Anyway, am I the only person who actually read The Hobbit, thought it was a great book, read Lord of the Rings and thought it was good, if long-winded, and then absolutely hated the films?
Over the age of seven? Yes, I think you are.
They're certainly not trilogies that will live in the memory like Star Wars (the proper trilogy, that is).
They are not trillogies at all. They are not even a single trillogy (which requires three complete but linked stories); The Lord of the Rings is one story broken (almost abitrarily) into three segments.
The velocity of an air-to-air missile is generally hypersonic: firing is generally subsonic, and it takes very little maneuverability to face the general direction of an opponent miles away.
If, somehow, you are in knife-fighting range, the added fuel spent is trivial given the short travel distance.
In short: if you are so close that you can't turn without having them circle, you are too close for a missile (which, generally speaking, works by exploding in the vicinity of rather than impacting).
But more to the point: if dog fighting is so useful and necessary: how come it doesn't happen?
And, bluntly, we are moving away from our reliance on fighters (as we move towards drones)... and the reason we have them is primarily as weapons platforms.
Missiles don't hit by "lining up the crosshairs", and guns have a very short (for a fighter aircraft) range.
So: to be forced into a dogfight, you have to be 1. In the slower plane (otherwise, just fly away) This assumes that 1a. You are not out of missiles and trying deliberately to engage in a gun battle and 1b. That you aren't afraid of your opponent's missiles and under the very odd belief that flying right at him will help you.
2. That you are out of missiles and he is out of missiles (see 1a and 1b), otherwise what you are dogfighting is his missile.
3. That your wingman and his wingman are out of missiles.
Iraq had an airforce... one with some planes that engaged the US repeatedly (read: survived engagement and reengaged). How many dogfights?
How many dog fights have occured with NATO aircraft in the past 20 years?
In the early days, Word's primary purpose was to ready a document so that you could print it out.
This is, simply put, not true. Microsoft had a word-processor for the kind of basic-school-assignment work you describe: MS-Works Write.
. Word was targeted at professional writers... people writing books and technical manuals and the like. That's why it had as many pre-press features as it did, that's why it was as expensive as is was, that's why (as Microsoft at one point pointed out), more than 80% of requests for new features were for features that were already there.
. Over time, it seems, people didn't want to use the "cheap" word-processor, thinking that there was no difference between "better suited" and "lesser". They then complained that this professional word-processor was too complex (surprise). (and to be honest, Works had some real issues too).
. Most users were not intended to use Office. In the beginning, there wasn't even an Office to use. That product was MS-Works.
And since you asked the personal question: I self-identified as atheist for decades until I had this debate and lost, discovering that atheism required a belief that an unevidenced god was also impossible.
I don't believe there is a god. I believe there is no evidence for one, and the flying-spaghetti monster is just as likely as there to be any god at all. I will be shocked if one exists.
But I can't prove a negative, and I would be believing without evidence (appealing to ignorance) to Believe there wasn't one rather than simply not believe there was.
The problem is that you are not using the words as I, or the dictionary, or the entomology dictates.
The agnostic and atheist (to what extent these words can be applied to other beliefs) would both fail to believe there was a Basilisk in the box.
I don't believe that there are purple 8-legged creatures living on a planet orbiting Beetleguise. If someone told me there were, I would accuse him of making it up and be willing to bet significant money the other way.
I have not removed the possibility: for that would require me to have contrary knowledge. I don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Good security (in this instance) is about preventing access, not preventing modification where access exists. If you wrote the unbreakable control code for your robosapien, I could simply replace the control card itself to gain control.
For your WiFi exmample, preventing the ability to connect to the robot via WiFi (by use of encryption and authentication or the like)
There a any number of viable methods to not carry fuel with them. Ramjets have been mentioned. Electromagnetic sails (or any kind of repulsor of an externally emitted wave/particle). The time-honored method of stealing velocity from other objects (gravity sling-shot).
And, in this case, if we are using a hypervelocity particle to repell a mass, then the particle could, presumably, be fired from a fixed point (Earth) to repel a ship.
The are in alphabetical order by date of discovery. This, if put in that sequence, would be "H"
I thought it was also shown in human data. FTA:
"It has been known that diabetics taking Metformin experience lower cancer rates"
I had cancer and they gave me chemo (then a high-doseage chemo (bone-marrow transplant)). That wasn't a pleasent feelign either.
Still, I doubt Metformin would have had the permenant effects that did.
There are two things that appeal to me about VMs.
The first is the east of backup/recovery/spawning new VMs. Want to play with altering ProgramA, no problem, let me just copy ProgramA's VM and start it up.
The other is less hardware. Perahps ProgramA and ProgramB don't want to run on the same server... they will generally run in seperate VMs fine. Perhaps ProgramA requires a different version of SQL, or some other dependancy; no problem in VMs. Things that were before going on underutilized servers can now be piled together one one.
And if it does get over-taxed, they are easy to move.
Digital information isn't books and pictures, and there's no reason it should be stored like it is.
Rather than files full of "archive media", which incurs regular conversion charges and risks both media degridation and "missing one" in the conversion resulting in it being unreadable: I recommend institutions work with live storage.
Setup a SAN, keep the data there, keep a live replica at another location. Backup the SAN on schedule.
As failures of storage media occur, they are detected (because the system is live, not dead stored disks) and can be replaced. Migration becomes "two SANs" not "thousands of tapes, flash drives, DVDs, and BlueRays".
Other than that: I can only suggest "give them three identical disks", so that partial failures of a disk can be recovered by comparing it to the other disks.
Did he spend 331 days, or did he check at some point every day he was at work?
Once we get past "surfed porn at work", the number of hours seems more relvent than the number of days.
I don't want to get hit by a steam locomotive
On brilliant thing about the Drake equation is that it's absolutely correct: but the variables can only be guessed at.
This equation seems to want to quantify variables. That seems, at best, an educated guess. This would make it very different from Drake's.
While HD FM does allow more programming per transmitter, each station still has the same licensed channel bandwidth/spacing so no frequencies are freed up.
The stations can divide up the frequency among a number of ways. As defined by iBiquity these channels could be sub-divided into CD-quality (100 kbit/s), FM-quality (25-50 kbit/s), AM-quality (12 kbit/s), or Talk-quality (5 kbit/s) channels. Alternatively, they could broadcast one single channel at 300 kbit/s.
Even if some people agree that HD-FM can sound good, it's lossy compression. At its' best it'll never reach CD quality. CD's don't use data compression.
To be fair, the lowest quality I generally listen to is about 200Kbit/s, and I'd call it "CD quality" to the point that the differences in matering on the source material are far more signifigant than the bitrate differences.
300Kbit/s, I would challenge most anyone to identify in blind tests... though I readily admit that would be mono on HD-Radio.
You claim CD-quality, just what are the sampling and data rates for "HD" radio??? Max data rate for a single FM station broadcasting HD under the current spec is 300Kbit/s, which is higher than Amazon's MP3 downloads.
Consumers are supposed to buy new equipment to save the broadcasters energy?
I suppose I *could* make an argument to that effect, but I've certainly not said so. It is an advantage, though perhaps not directly to the consumers.
The digital advantage for operation at lower power levels frequently doesn't work in practice. Just look at all the people having trouble getting DTV reception in areas that supposedly have usable signal levels.
As someone getting better DTV than analog signals, mileage apparently varies.
As Wikipedia has me understand, the current power output is 1% of analog? If there's a signal problem, perhaps 10% would solve it (speculating).
I'm not advocating HD, nor reproaching it. I'm merely correcting incorrect or unfair comments regarding it.
I was unclear (my bad):
HD radio requires a fraction of the power of analog... to broadcast.
You make entierly untrue assumptions about HD radio, and unfair comparisons.
HD radio requires a fraction of the power of analog.
HD radio requires a fraction of the bandwidth of analog.
HD radio survives with 0% distortion over the majority of its receivable range.
HD radio is capable of CD-quality sound.
HD radio is capable of >2-channel encoding.
Similarly, your LP-vs-CD, while bordering on religious, is unfounded. Though LPs have a higher top frequency than standard CDs on their first play, both are well above human hearing.
The long-and-short is that the quality of playback on high-end equipment, when considered in light of the human ear, will be far more dependant on the mastering than on CD-vs-LP. And at that level we are usually discussing SACD and DVD-A... welcome to the 21st century.
And yes, I've heard CDs sound like live; and I've heard a number of SACDs that do. I suspect that you havent either because of a disparity in the mastering, a disparity in the playback equipment, or listener bias.
The experienced failure rate for the shuttle is 1%.
But both cases resulted no from "reasonable risk" but sheer negligence.
In the case of the Challenger, the shuttle had established lower limits of temperature-at-pad in which the designers considered a launch "safe". These limits were ignored and the shuttle was lauched despite freezing temperatures on the pad. This directly caused the loss of the vehicle.
In the case of the Columbia: the actual event (the loss of foam) doesn't appear to be negligence (as opposed to a discovered risk), but the fall was identified as a potential problem. At that point, no steps were performed to assess the damage and come up with a contingency (there was, for example, a fueld Soyuez in orbit (at the ISS) that might have been a viable escape vehicle).
If NASA had simply followed their own specs on the shuttle, and if they had performed a space-walk to assess damage *when a strike had already been identified*, we would have lost at most one shuttle and likely zero astronouts.
So it's OK to listen outside your bedroom window and record that, but not use a laser to do so?
The difference between these 12 states and others is that the others allow only one party to know the recording is going on.
I believe in all cases, recording a conversation you are not obviously present at is wiretapping (or some other name thereof)
It depends on your definition of "improve". ...and your gear. ...and your own abilities.
Most obvious Blueray supports 1080 pictures (DVD comes out at about 480) meaning more than four times the clarity. How good/large your screen is will determine how noticeable that is, and how good your vision is will determine if you notice even that, and whether you much care about image quality will determine if that's an "improvement".
Similarly, 7-channel "master-recording" (like DTS-Master) is not possible off DVD... well, it is but not if you want a full-length movie on there as well.
Will you notice? Depends on your ear, your speakers, and your ability/interest in the difference.
The good news is that the cost difference between DVD and Blueray will go away before you have to worry that they aren't making your favorite movie on DVD any more.
The comment was tounge-in-cheek.
You should really read the book some time. If you had, you would have known that it is actually 6 books, published in pairs.
There is an unfortunate truth that there are multiple definitions of "book".
It is not uncommon for a single "book" (a non-anthology single story) to be divided. Sentances, paragraphs, chapters, and something larger (sometimes calls "parts", sometimes called "acts", and in some cases, like LOtR, "books").
I was not referring to this latter definition of "book" (by which James Clavel's "Shogun" is "three books"), but rather to the former.
Tolkien wrote a single story (out of his collections of partial works) called "The Lord of the Rings". Because of resource shortages, the publisher broke this singe story into three parts: "books" in the sense that they were bound seperately from one another.
From a literary perspective, this was a reasonably arbitray division.
When Jackon made movies, he originally planned two. At the suggestion of NewLine, he made three, and named them after thee titles of these three bound-volume (side note: Tolkien added these names *after* the publisher decided to split his single book up).
Jackson only loosely followed the break-points (breaking FotR later than the book does). Much like the publisher before him, this split was done out of pragmatism. Three movies because of the non-profitability of a single 12-hour movie, and broken where they were to give some sense of three-act arc to the individual movies.
Regardless, they are certainly not a trilogy (and I have read the books, and the Hobbit, and the Silmarilion).
Anyway, am I the only person who actually read The Hobbit, thought it was a great book, read Lord of the Rings and thought it was good, if long-winded, and then absolutely hated the films?
Over the age of seven? Yes, I think you are.
They're certainly not trilogies that will live in the memory like Star Wars (the proper trilogy, that is).
They are not trillogies at all. They are not even a single trillogy (which requires three complete but linked stories); The Lord of the Rings is one story broken (almost abitrarily) into three segments.
The velocity of an air-to-air missile is generally hypersonic: firing is generally subsonic, and it takes very little maneuverability to face the general direction of an opponent miles away.
If, somehow, you are in knife-fighting range, the added fuel spent is trivial given the short travel distance.
In short: if you are so close that you can't turn without having them circle, you are too close for a missile (which, generally speaking, works by exploding in the vicinity of rather than impacting).
But more to the point: if dog fighting is so useful and necessary: how come it doesn't happen?
And, bluntly, we are moving away from our reliance on fighters (as we move towards drones)... and the reason we have them is primarily as weapons platforms.
Missiles don't hit by "lining up the crosshairs", and guns have a very short (for a fighter aircraft) range.
So: to be forced into a dogfight, you have to be
1. In the slower plane (otherwise, just fly away)
This assumes that
1a. You are not out of missiles and trying deliberately to engage in a gun battle and
1b. That you aren't afraid of your opponent's missiles and under the very odd belief that flying right at him will help you.
2. That you are out of missiles and he is out of missiles (see 1a and 1b), otherwise what you are dogfighting is his missile.
3. That your wingman and his wingman are out of missiles.
Iraq had an airforce... one with some planes that engaged the US repeatedly (read: survived engagement and reengaged). How many dogfights?
How many dog fights have occured with NATO aircraft in the past 20 years?
In the early days, Word's primary purpose was to ready a document so that you could print it out.
This is, simply put, not true. Microsoft had a word-processor for the kind of basic-school-assignment work you describe: MS-Works Write.
.
Word was targeted at professional writers... people writing books and technical manuals and the like. That's why it had as many pre-press features as it did, that's why it was as expensive as is was, that's why (as Microsoft at one point pointed out), more than 80% of requests for new features were for features that were already there.
.
Over time, it seems, people didn't want to use the "cheap" word-processor, thinking that there was no difference between "better suited" and "lesser". They then complained that this professional word-processor was too complex (surprise). (and to be honest, Works had some real issues too).
.
Most users were not intended to use Office. In the beginning, there wasn't even an Office to use. That product was MS-Works.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk
the belief that God does not exist. :
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
And since you asked the personal question: I self-identified as atheist for decades until I had this debate and lost, discovering that atheism required a belief that an unevidenced god was also impossible.
I don't believe there is a god. I believe there is no evidence for one, and the flying-spaghetti monster is just as likely as there to be any god at all. I will be shocked if one exists.
But I can't prove a negative, and I would be believing without evidence (appealing to ignorance) to Believe there wasn't one rather than simply not believe there was.
The problem is that you are not using the words as I, or the dictionary, or the entomology dictates.
The agnostic and atheist (to what extent these words can be applied to other beliefs) would both fail to believe there was a Basilisk in the box.
I don't believe that there are purple 8-legged creatures living on a planet orbiting Beetleguise. If someone told me there were, I would accuse him of making it up and be willing to bet significant money the other way.
I have not removed the possibility: for that would require me to have contrary knowledge. I don't.
You appear to by lying.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk
"the belief that God does not exist."