Malware does not go where the users are in other environments, it goes where the ease of exploiting vulnerabilities and the size of the market make it worthwhile. Apache is more popular than IIS, yet IIS has more discovered and exploited vulnerabilities.
A secure OS would make sure that all code downloaded from the net is identified to the user as code downloaded from the net and its source/publisher, and a secure OS does not allow the downloaded code to execute until after the user has acknowledged that it is a downloaded program and given explicit permission.
If you exclude all malware/exploits on Microsoft operating systems, Microsoft makes the most secure operating systems, because there are, by definition, no malware/exploits.
US Oil production peaked in 1970, at around 9 1/2 million barrels per day. Current US Oil production is down to 5 million barrels per day, and is dropping at an average around 150,000 barrels per day per year. Ten years out, if we're lucky, the US will produce 3 1/5 million barrels per day. Oh, and US demand for oil is at 10 million barrels per day and rising.
That's what I get for posting before whipping out the calculator. The acceleration needed to go 200 AUs in 2.5 years is only 9.5 E-3 meters/second. Or around.001g. I don't trust my calculus any more, but integrating the acceleration over that time is in the ballpark.
The article sounds like it's extrapolating the peak 0.6g acceleration for the entire length of the flight. Seems to me that acceleration is proportional to the light flux trapped and/or reflected by the sail, which will fall off with the square of the distance from the sun. So you can't get to the Oort cloud in just a couple of years.
I was fixing the lights in my basement. Circuit was live, switch was open, and I still got a "tickle" when working on the socket. Pulled the breaker, and found out that the home handyman who wired that part of the basement had put the switch on the white (return) wire. Grrrrr!
Now, do I pay an electrician to find out all the places where the wiring is screwed up? Or just double-check when I need to work on a circuit?
The neighbors can recover damages if the company has any assets left.
Many firms polluted, and then went belly up. Nobody to sue. Many of the former executives, of course, were richly compensated in spite of their failure.
Also, in high level languages, the developer has easy access to powerful abstractions with well-tested implementations. If I know I'm going to need access to a lot of data, it's trivial to say "Map myMap = new HashMap(); while (...) {... ; myMap.add( key, value); }" It's a lot more work to build the structures in assembly language to do the same thing. So the developer takes a shortcut and writes a simple linked list. In cases like these, high-level implementations that use the appropriate algorithms will beat the pants off assembly-language implementations that use simpler algorithms because coding the complex algorithm is not practical.
why would it not be a commercially viable product?
Tiny User Base. So there's no incentive to be a developer for the platform. Doesn't support UNIX/POSIX standards, so it's not easy to port existing software to the platform. Freely available OSs have orders of magnitudes more users and developers, and far more reference material making them easier to learn. Who cares about fitting on a 1.4 MB floppy when 1 GB USB drives are practically free?
Ehhh. The whole effort doesn't impress me. There are/were Linux distros that fit onto a floppy. OSs were written in Assembly for years.
If they can demonstrate that "remov[ing] the extra layers between different parts of an OS" simplifies programming and eliminates bugs, then they'll have something interesting. And they can have a flame war with the microkernel folks, who assert that separating the OS into separate parts that are independent and can be thoroughly tested simplifies programming and eliminates bugs.
Abstractions have a purpose; they make it easier to think about things. There are no "Files" or "Folders" (or "Directories", for those of a Unix persuasion) on your hard drive; there are only a sequence of blocks. The Operating System provides the abstraction of files. Various protocols and their implementations then provide an abstraction that "Files" and "Folders" on remote machines are just like "Files" and "Folders" on the local drive.
If abstractions make life complicated for the OS developer, but easier for the user, is it a win? It depends on whether the OS has more developers or users.
I saw the Liberty Science Center, the Exploratorium in San Francisco, COSI in Columbus pretty close together in time (this was 15 years ago...) so I've mixed up what I saw and where I saw it a bit. I do recall seeing a rotating globe and a bigger rotating disk at two of those; both had a fluid surface with sparkly bits suspended in it. You spin the table or sphere, and see all kinds of complex patterns form; it helps illuminate the complexities of weather you see on Jupiter and here on earth (the jet stream).
There is a lot of evidence left behind by annual processes that show 150,000 years (ice cores) to 6,000,000 years (Green River varves).
That is evidence. Asserting that the world is only 6012 years old (October, 4004 BC, according to Bishop Ussher) requires one to assert that this evidence of history was also created 6012 years ago; this assertion is logically identical to stating that my cat, Sidney, created the world Last Thursday.
ID has no place in biology classes, because it is not science. It makes precious few testable predictions that differ from conventional biology, and there are no cases where ID does better than evolution. ID isn't even good enough to qualify as a failed theory, like inheritance of acquired characteristics, or geocentrism, or the luminiferous aether.
Your physics class should have taught of the experimental and physical evidence that made believing in luminiferous aether untenable. As well as the dismissal of the caloric theory of heat.
The sum total of biological evidence supports evolution first, last, and only. Evolution, in the field of biology, has attained a similar foundational status to the periodic table and the atomic theory of matter in chemistry, or the notion of the planets orbiting around the sun, and the sun orbiting around the center of the galaxy, in astronomy. All three are overwhelmingly supported by evidence, and organize and explain that evidence simply and elegantly. They could not be replaced by anything radically different, because anything radically different could not explain all of the observations that have been made.
Right. Because pork is unclean to eat, even if the parasites have been cooked to death. And you can't let meat and dairy products touch, or even serve them on the same dishes.
The story of Noah is verified by science, if you read the five ancestors (Noah, his wife, and his three son's wives) were really 10,000. And the event happened 70,000 years ago, rather than 5,000. And there was no boat, or global flood.
So really, there isn't much that is specific and accurate about Noah's story. The lucky is in the forcing the story to fit the facts.
The first chapters of Genesis aren't even consistent among themselves! Still, they diverge wildly from science. Fruiting plants before fish? Birds before land animals?
Look, we voted out the Republicans who turned a surplus into a deficit and left the economy a wreck.
The deficit will not continue to grow.
Taxes on the wealthiest will go up. Republicans will cry that these new taxes are ruining the economy, and they will have an impact similar to the Emergency Deficit Reduction act of 1993 (I think I got the title right...) 8 years of increasing prosperity and decreasing deficits (and eventually, expanding surpluses).
As long as the Republicans don't steal another Presidential Election...
I used to have an old 17 in CRT that did up to 2560x1600,
Almost certainly you did not. A 4:3 17" diagonal (ignoring the fact that that 17" is exaggerated) is 13.6 inches wide and 10.2 inches tall. Converting to metric, the display is 345.44 mm wide, and 259.08 mm tall. A good monitor had 0.22 mm dot pitch, so dividing by 0.22 yields 1570 x 1178 phosphor triads.
From the atmosphere's point of view, both conventional power generation and this setup involve the addition of "new" energy:
Sure, the energy beamed to earth or released by combustion
it's just that for fossil fuels, we're talking about a lot more new energy.
I would have phrased this differently. Fossil fuels and power beamed to earth both add energy to the earth, but the fossil fuels also add CO2 to the atmosphere, and the CO2 traps additional solar energy until it is removed. That trapped solar energy can be many, many, many times the original chemical energy released.
All we have is repeated observations that energy is conserved. Conservation of energy has been shown to be true over and over and over again.
Our 400-year-old physics model, Newtonian Mechanics, was supplemented by a newer physics model, Special Relativity, a little more than a hundred years ago. Newtonian Mechanics still describes the movement of just about all objects above/on/inside the earth to within the precision of measurement (particle accelerators are just about the only exception to this, as they can get things going pretty close to light speed). Noone laughs at Newtonian Mechanics; we know it isn't absolutely precise everywhere, but it's good enough to guide space probes to the outer planets. Hardly "wrong".
Illusionists regularly do things that, to the common observer, appear impossible. This box was empty; close the drapes, open them again, and it now contains James Young and his guitar. And the box over there now contains Tommy Shaw. And Todd Sucherman in the box on the other side. A huckster might claim this was a demonstration of teleportation, which is a massive violation of the laws of physics. I would claim that it was an illusion, and an accomplished illusionist might be able to explain how they did it, and what I need to look for to find the trick.
It's dangerous to just accept "laws" as fact without further testing. ALL science should be open to question and testing...that's part of the whole idea. Taking it as holy writ stops it being science.
It's also dangerous to just accept the words of hucksters as fact. So the question is, which danger is greater? Hucksters seem to be far more common than paradigm-changing breakthroughs.
Science puts the burden on those who are challenging conventional wisdom. There is much fame and recognition to be won by successfully challenging what everybody knows. That's how Einstein, Hubble, Wegener, and Feynman did it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the voters chose Gore over Bush. Even in Florida. Somehow, the greater evil took power anyway.
Incorrect on so many points.
Malware does not go where the users are in other environments, it goes where the ease of exploiting vulnerabilities and the size of the market make it worthwhile. Apache is more popular than IIS, yet IIS has more discovered and exploited vulnerabilities.
A secure OS would make sure that all code downloaded from the net is identified to the user as code downloaded from the net and its source/publisher, and a secure OS does not allow the downloaded code to execute until after the user has acknowledged that it is a downloaded program and given explicit permission.
If you exclude all malware/exploits on Microsoft operating systems, Microsoft makes the most secure operating systems, because there are, by definition, no malware/exploits.
US Oil production peaked in 1970, at around 9 1/2 million barrels per day. Current US Oil production is down to 5 million barrels per day, and is dropping at an average around 150,000 barrels per day per year. Ten years out, if we're lucky, the US will produce 3 1/5 million barrels per day. Oh, and US demand for oil is at 10 million barrels per day and rising.
That's what I get for posting before whipping out the calculator. The acceleration needed to go 200 AUs in 2.5 years is only 9.5 E-3 meters/second. Or around .001g. I don't trust my calculus any more, but integrating the acceleration over that time is in the ballpark.
The article sounds like it's extrapolating the peak 0.6g acceleration for the entire length of the flight. Seems to me that acceleration is proportional to the light flux trapped and/or reflected by the sail, which will fall off with the square of the distance from the sun. So you can't get to the Oort cloud in just a couple of years.
What am I missing?
I was fixing the lights in my basement. Circuit was live, switch was open, and I still got a "tickle" when working on the socket. Pulled the breaker, and found out that the home handyman who wired that part of the basement had put the switch on the white (return) wire. Grrrrr!
Now, do I pay an electrician to find out all the places where the wiring is screwed up? Or just double-check when I need to work on a circuit?
The neighbors can recover damages if the company has any assets left.
Many firms polluted, and then went belly up. Nobody to sue. Many of the former executives, of course, were richly compensated in spite of their failure.
Also, in high level languages, the developer has easy access to powerful abstractions with well-tested implementations. If I know I'm going to need access to a lot of data, it's trivial to say "Map myMap = new HashMap(); while ( ...) { ... ; myMap.add( key, value); }" It's a lot more work to build the structures in assembly language to do the same thing. So the developer takes a shortcut and writes a simple linked list. In cases like these, high-level implementations that use the appropriate algorithms will beat the pants off assembly-language implementations that use simpler algorithms because coding the complex algorithm is not practical.
Tiny User Base. So there's no incentive to be a developer for the platform. Doesn't support UNIX/POSIX standards, so it's not easy to port existing software to the platform. Freely available OSs have orders of magnitudes more users and developers, and far more reference material making them easier to learn. Who cares about fitting on a 1.4 MB floppy when 1 GB USB drives are practically free?
Ehhh. The whole effort doesn't impress me. There are/were Linux distros that fit onto a floppy. OSs were written in Assembly for years.
If they can demonstrate that "remov[ing] the extra layers between different parts of an OS" simplifies programming and eliminates bugs, then they'll have something interesting. And they can have a flame war with the microkernel folks, who assert that separating the OS into separate parts that are independent and can be thoroughly tested simplifies programming and eliminates bugs.
Abstractions have a purpose; they make it easier to think about things. There are no "Files" or "Folders" (or "Directories", for those of a Unix persuasion) on your hard drive; there are only a sequence of blocks. The Operating System provides the abstraction of files. Various protocols and their implementations then provide an abstraction that "Files" and "Folders" on remote machines are just like "Files" and "Folders" on the local drive.
If abstractions make life complicated for the OS developer, but easier for the user, is it a win? It depends on whether the OS has more developers or users.
Discover just (18 months ago?) changed my card numbers. Something about switching to a new system.
The mag strips is failing to be read more frequently now. What's up with that?
Add in Srebrenica from the 1990s. And Sabra and Shatila from the 1980s.
I saw the Liberty Science Center, the Exploratorium in San Francisco, COSI in Columbus pretty close together in time (this was 15 years ago...) so I've mixed up what I saw and where I saw it a bit. I do recall seeing a rotating globe and a bigger rotating disk at two of those; both had a fluid surface with sparkly bits suspended in it. You spin the table or sphere, and see all kinds of complex patterns form; it helps illuminate the complexities of weather you see on Jupiter and here on earth (the jet stream).
So you're a pirate! Off to the stocks with you. If it didn't cost anything to download, you must have stolen it.
There is a lot of evidence left behind by annual processes that show 150,000 years (ice cores) to 6,000,000 years (Green River varves).
That is evidence. Asserting that the world is only 6012 years old (October, 4004 BC, according to Bishop Ussher) requires one to assert that this evidence of history was also created 6012 years ago; this assertion is logically identical to stating that my cat, Sidney, created the world Last Thursday.
ID has no place in biology classes, because it is not science. It makes precious few testable predictions that differ from conventional biology, and there are no cases where ID does better than evolution. ID isn't even good enough to qualify as a failed theory, like inheritance of acquired characteristics, or geocentrism, or the luminiferous aether.
Your physics class should have taught of the experimental and physical evidence that made believing in luminiferous aether untenable. As well as the dismissal of the caloric theory of heat.
The sum total of biological evidence supports evolution first, last, and only. Evolution, in the field of biology, has attained a similar foundational status to the periodic table and the atomic theory of matter in chemistry, or the notion of the planets orbiting around the sun, and the sun orbiting around the center of the galaxy, in astronomy. All three are overwhelmingly supported by evidence, and organize and explain that evidence simply and elegantly. They could not be replaced by anything radically different, because anything radically different could not explain all of the observations that have been made.
Right. Because pork is unclean to eat, even if the parasites have been cooked to death. And you can't let meat and dairy products touch, or even serve them on the same dishes.
The story of Noah is verified by science, if you read the five ancestors (Noah, his wife, and his three son's wives) were really 10,000. And the event happened 70,000 years ago, rather than 5,000. And there was no boat, or global flood.
So really, there isn't much that is specific and accurate about Noah's story. The lucky is in the forcing the story to fit the facts.
The first chapters of Genesis aren't even consistent among themselves! Still, they diverge wildly from science. Fruiting plants before fish? Birds before land animals?
The hard coating on many candies and other confections are made from insects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shellac
Look, we voted out the Republicans who turned a surplus into a deficit and left the economy a wreck.
The deficit will not continue to grow.
Taxes on the wealthiest will go up. Republicans will cry that these new taxes are ruining the economy, and they will have an impact similar to the Emergency Deficit Reduction act of 1993 (I think I got the title right...) 8 years of increasing prosperity and decreasing deficits (and eventually, expanding surpluses).
As long as the Republicans don't steal another Presidential Election...
Almost certainly you did not. A 4:3 17" diagonal (ignoring the fact that that 17" is exaggerated) is 13.6 inches wide and 10.2 inches tall. Converting to metric, the display is 345.44 mm wide, and 259.08 mm tall. A good monitor had 0.22 mm dot pitch, so dividing by 0.22 yields 1570 x 1178 phosphor triads.
Sure, the energy beamed to earth or released by combustion
I would have phrased this differently. Fossil fuels and power beamed to earth both add energy to the earth, but the fossil fuels also add CO2 to the atmosphere, and the CO2 traps additional solar energy until it is removed. That trapped solar energy can be many, many, many times the original chemical energy released.
Proof is for liquor; not science.
All we have is repeated observations that energy is conserved. Conservation of energy has been shown to be true over and over and over again.
Our 400-year-old physics model, Newtonian Mechanics, was supplemented by a newer physics model, Special Relativity, a little more than a hundred years ago. Newtonian Mechanics still describes the movement of just about all objects above/on/inside the earth to within the precision of measurement (particle accelerators are just about the only exception to this, as they can get things going pretty close to light speed). Noone laughs at Newtonian Mechanics; we know it isn't absolutely precise everywhere, but it's good enough to guide space probes to the outer planets. Hardly "wrong".
Illusionists regularly do things that, to the common observer, appear impossible. This box was empty; close the drapes, open them again, and it now contains James Young and his guitar. And the box over there now contains Tommy Shaw. And Todd Sucherman in the box on the other side. A huckster might claim this was a demonstration of teleportation, which is a massive violation of the laws of physics. I would claim that it was an illusion, and an accomplished illusionist might be able to explain how they did it, and what I need to look for to find the trick.
Nahhh, don't bother.
It's also dangerous to just accept the words of hucksters as fact. So the question is, which danger is greater? Hucksters seem to be far more common than paradigm-changing breakthroughs.
Science puts the burden on those who are challenging conventional wisdom. There is much fame and recognition to be won by successfully challenging what everybody knows. That's how Einstein, Hubble, Wegener, and Feynman did it.