Maybe that's what the previous astronauts were doing.
"Russian officials, quoted in the local media, have accused the previous crew of overeating during their 6-month mission earlier this year, leaving a deficit of meat and milk and a surplus of juice and confectionery"
The main reason those people are starving is not the lack of money or food.
While the IMF and friends might be partly responsible, most of the problems are self-inflicted. There's a limit you can go with blaming the whites - since a higher proportion of the formerly colonized non-African countries are doing much better.
"The destruction of much of Zimbabwe's agricultural base through the seizing of mainly white-owned farms throughout 1999 and 2000 has ruined the Zimbabwean economy".
In Sudan, the Government bombs their own people (or people in their country they'd rather not be their people - sure looks like state-sanctioned genocide): "The armed forces of Sudan frequently bomb civilian targets including hospitals and feeding sites".
Yep, they bomb places where humanitarian organizations are distributing food to their own (unwanted) citizens. Nice eh?
Saddam Hussein is "good" in contrast to many of the leaders in Africa. Gaddafi is probably a saint in comparison (he's mellowed a lot in past years - he might even be going benevolent dictator...!).
I suppose if the Africans succeed in wiping themselves out (with disease[1] and genocide), there wouldn't be future generations who'd still insist on killing each other. And thus there wouldn't be millions of Africans dying each year.
[1] It appears that many African men believe they can be cured of HIV if they have sex with a virgin - so they go and rape young girls.
Yeah, the helium makes me wonder whether natural gas (and other hydrocarbons) are really "fossil" fuels.
Maybe some of it is from dead animals and plants, but there's a good chance that Thomas Gold guy is right.
Still even if he's right, the generation rates are probably not be good enough to satisfy global demand. His theory could be useful if we can figure out a way to viably increase the generation rates - e.g. pump stuff into the ground and harvest hydrocarbons X years later.
There's a difference between a collector and a pack rat.
There's a big difference between a vast library/collection and huge piles of junk.
It's whether the stuff is organized or not so that you can easily retrieve an item of choice, AND easily find out that you have various items to retrieve in the first place.
So I argue it isn't a problem as long as it's organized and you can find stuff easily when you want.
People with very good memory are able to retrieve tons of data at will. So I don't see why this sort of thing should be considered a problem. So just think of it as people being able to have the equivalent of very good "digital" memories.
Given that modern tech has people "seeing" with their tongues and playing pong/moving cursors with just their thoughts, it shouldn't be very long till people start to have auxiliary digital memories.
Get some mini video camera+stereophonic mikes, plug them to a wearable computer with tons of storage. Interface the wearable computer with human.
Voila - human can pull up arbitrary video/sound with the appropriate thought macros. Can broadcast it, or send it to others (virtual telepathy). Can control other devices just by thinking about it (virtual telekinesis).
One of the biggest problems I see is the screwed up Copyright Laws, and that they appear to be becoming even more and more screwed up.
A penny for your thoughts? I doubt the likes of RIAA, MPAA, Disney etc would settle for just a penny.
Yeah, but sometimes it's not really them that buys these things.
e.g. Mr Multi-Billionaire would tell his lackey - OK I need a place to stay, keep it below 50 million. Ask the Missus about the details. But I want something like that fancy theater system I saw at Al's den the other day. Oh and I probably need a computer too.
He might not be the one going over the details. This is probably his _leisure_time_ stuff. His _leisure_time_ has probably got to be worth a lot more to him than his work time.
Not sure if that'll remain so if they manage to extend lifespans to 1000 years. But my guess is it'll still be true.
Then many people who don't have that much money would be "Colonel Sanders rich" too.
Because they don't want more than they can afford.
That's actually a good state to be in. But it's often hard if you have other responsibilities like children - esp if they don't have similar priorities/values.
Malicious site? All you need is to compromise or hijack (DNS etc) the relevant banner ad site or partner site.
Has happened before.
Users may still have to click something, but they could easily be tricked into doing that. Most users aren't constantly vigilant and observant. If the compromised banner ad opened another window that looked like Citibank's site whilst you were using Citibank's site, you could fall for it - especially since Citibank does use pop-ups.
Unfortunately many online banking/financial/payment sites seem to _require_ javascript in order to work.
This is true for Citibank, and many other online banking sites.
I'm not sure why they _require_ javascript to support the basic functionality. I'd be fine with it if they only required javascript for non-basic features like "backfill", drag and drop. But lots of sites require it even for the _links_, almost as if they don't know how to use A HREF:).
Sure if you use webmail AND do online banking at the same time. Or browse other websites and do online banking at the same time.
For example: you could be vulnerable if you happen to view an _advert_ from a compromised/hijacked site - something like this happened recently to an advertiser that supplies ads to sites like The Register (theregister.co.uk).
I just turn javascript/active scripting off for all sites except sites I choose to trust. So this exploit (like many others) didn't work on my IE.
As for CC numbers, I'm not too worried about my credit card stuff - after all, if anything happens it's not MY money that's gone. I'm more worried about my savings/current account - coz that's MY money. So I often prefer to use my credit card instead of cash or other payment methods.
It's not as big a problem as the lack of clear/decent thinking.
Usually if the brain/mind behind the bad spelling and grammar is at least half-decent, after some effort and iterations you can figure out what it wants, AND most importantly - it is more likely to be well worth the effort.
My real peeve is the Marketing Bullshit stuff you see on so many corporate documents.
What's with all these multisyllabic words and meaningless phrases? After all as the topic goes -so many people are near illiterate.
I don't agree that "formal" writing should be like that e.g. "mesh user-centric e-tailers", "maximize synergistic supply-chains".
Blaise Pascal: "Je N'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parceque je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." -- "I have only made this letter rather long because I have not had time to make it shorter."
They were just giving their customers what their customers wanted - features. And now more and more customers want security. So they're giving it to them. That's Capitalism at its best.
What I don't like about Microsoft is they are fond of dirty tricks - backstabbing partners etc (too many to list). They'll bend and break rules as long as they can get away with it, or if it works out to still be profitable to do so. This is Capitalism at its worst.
There are other very successful companies which don't behave so badly. Such practice does not appear to be endemic to their corporate cultures.
I don't see why Microsoft has to do all that bad stuff to get and stay ahead. They can write stuff that sells.
Believe me, Microsoft Word is still better than Lotus Word Pro or StarWriter. The latter two are more prone to not doing what I tell them to - e.g. text format not staying the way I specified.
Yeah, but in the IIS6 case it means a lot in the real world.
Either the exploits aren't a dime a dozen or only the real elite hackers can find them.
Or even if those people who were investigating and exploiting IIS4 and IIS5 have lost interest in IIS, it still counts for something - at least people won't have to patch IIS6 every few weeks just to avoid being taken over by some worm. It's just like people who use FireFox are much safer than those who use IE. Code quality-wise, FireFox isn't really that much safer than IE, but exploit-wise it is.
If Mr Elite Hacker somewhere in Eastern Europe can 0wn IIS6, the fact he hasn't after so long means he's just saving his exploits for special situations. Which still means safer for the average site.
In contrast Apache hasn't had a good track record, esp 2.0. I've had to update Apache way too many times to consider it a secure webserver.
Sure. The way I see it is: we have brains, the power to change things AND are already changing things whether voluntarily or not. There are 6 billion of us. The animals and plants directly under our control and responsibility number even more.
So, we should be careful to pick the changes we want so that we have a decent time on this world (and possibly other worlds).
Trying to minimize the number of species from going extinct just for the sake of that is silly. Trying to prevent any change to the environment is silly too. But changing or allowing change to the environment without long-term consideration is irresponsible.
If whales etc have to go extinct then it better be a well thought out choice, rather than "oops".
But I sure think we'd be better off if all the bloodsucking mosquitoes go extinct and stay extinct. Sure some animals will suffer and might even go extinct if they (or their prey) don't have enough mosquitoes to eat, but NOT all will. Some will adapt and many wouldn't even notice the difference - after all there ARE other mosquitoes and insects that don't suck blood. Adapt to a human-friendly lifestyle or die (same goes for humans;) ).
Just like we'd be better off without HIV and Polio, and various _nasty_ parasites. We can live with some of the other parasites or pests (I don't like roaches, but they don't seem as harmful as the bloodsucking types of mosquitoes).
What we need is clear thinking and not irrational screaming of "Murder" etc. Sure, I'm cold and heartless, but if a species has to go extinct or suffer for the greater good of humankind, so be it.
But it better be for the greater good!
Hopefully most people don't believe "As long as things don't get totally messed up in my lifetime it's OK".
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently the problem allegedly is because the prev crew ate mostly the foods high in protein and calcium... Meat and milk.
So these two don't have much of those left.
Maybe that's what the previous astronauts were doing.
"Russian officials, quoted in the local media, have accused the previous crew of overeating during their 6-month mission earlier this year, leaving a deficit of meat and milk and a surplus of juice and confectionery"
The main reason those people are starving is not the lack of money or food.
While the IMF and friends might be partly responsible, most of the problems are self-inflicted. There's a limit you can go with blaming the whites - since a higher proportion of the formerly colonized non-African countries are doing much better.
"The destruction of much of Zimbabwe's agricultural base through the seizing of mainly white-owned farms throughout 1999 and 2000 has ruined the Zimbabwean economy".
In Sudan, the Government bombs their own people (or people in their country they'd rather not be their people - sure looks like state-sanctioned genocide): "The armed forces of Sudan frequently bomb civilian targets including hospitals and feeding sites".
Yep, they bomb places where humanitarian organizations are distributing food to their own (unwanted) citizens. Nice eh?
Saddam Hussein is "good" in contrast to many of the leaders in Africa. Gaddafi is probably a saint in comparison (he's mellowed a lot in past years - he might even be going benevolent dictator...!).
I suppose if the Africans succeed in wiping themselves out (with disease[1] and genocide), there wouldn't be future generations who'd still insist on killing each other. And thus there wouldn't be millions of Africans dying each year.
[1] It appears that many African men believe they can be cured of HIV if they have sex with a virgin - so they go and rape young girls.
Yeah, the helium makes me wonder whether natural gas (and other hydrocarbons) are really "fossil" fuels.
Maybe some of it is from dead animals and plants, but there's a good chance that Thomas Gold guy is right.
Still even if he's right, the generation rates are probably not be good enough to satisfy global demand. His theory could be useful if we can figure out a way to viably increase the generation rates - e.g. pump stuff into the ground and harvest hydrocarbons X years later.
There's a difference between a collector and a pack rat.
There's a big difference between a vast library/collection and huge piles of junk.
It's whether the stuff is organized or not so that you can easily retrieve an item of choice, AND easily find out that you have various items to retrieve in the first place.
So I argue it isn't a problem as long as it's organized and you can find stuff easily when you want.
People with very good memory are able to retrieve tons of data at will. So I don't see why this sort of thing should be considered a problem. So just think of it as people being able to have the equivalent of very good "digital" memories.
Given that modern tech has people "seeing" with their tongues and playing pong/moving cursors with just their thoughts, it shouldn't be very long till people start to have auxiliary digital memories.
Get some mini video camera+stereophonic mikes, plug them to a wearable computer with tons of storage. Interface the wearable computer with human.
Voila - human can pull up arbitrary video/sound with the appropriate thought macros. Can broadcast it, or send it to others (virtual telepathy). Can control other devices just by thinking about it (virtual telekinesis).
One of the biggest problems I see is the screwed up Copyright Laws, and that they appear to be becoming even more and more screwed up.
A penny for your thoughts? I doubt the likes of RIAA, MPAA, Disney etc would settle for just a penny.
D'oh! You missed my point completely.
They think the voters are too stupid (or apathetic) to realize it is technically pointless[1].
The method of recount they picked is just a matter of _how_ stupid/apathetic they think the voters are.
Yeah, but sometimes it's not really them that buys these things.
e.g. Mr Multi-Billionaire would tell his lackey - OK I need a place to stay, keep it below 50 million. Ask the Missus about the details. But I want something like that fancy theater system I saw at Al's den the other day. Oh and I probably need a computer too.
He might not be the one going over the details. This is probably his _leisure_time_ stuff. His _leisure_time_ has probably got to be worth a lot more to him than his work time.
Not sure if that'll remain so if they manage to extend lifespans to 1000 years. But my guess is it'll still be true.
Then many people who don't have that much money would be "Colonel Sanders rich" too.
Because they don't want more than they can afford.
That's actually a good state to be in. But it's often hard if you have other responsibilities like children - esp if they don't have similar priorities/values.
That's because there's likely to be at least one competitor out of the many that's technically better.
Also competitors that are technically inferior are unlikely to last long or have much success getting into the market in the first place.
Minor note: it's an HTTP spec not an HTML spec.
It helps in some cases to keep the two things distinct (e.g. stuff like how to quote characters).
It's just a matter of how stupid/apathetic they think the voters are.
Hypothetical scenarios:
If the voters are stupid, then they'd print everything out and do a full manual recount.
If they are very stupid, then they'd do this.
If they are completely stupid, there wouldn't be a recount.
The end objective is to convince the voters that everything is fine and they can resume their normal programming.
Malicious site? All you need is to compromise or hijack (DNS etc) the relevant banner ad site or partner site.
Has happened before.
Users may still have to click something, but they could easily be tricked into doing that. Most users aren't constantly vigilant and observant. If the compromised banner ad opened another window that looked like Citibank's site whilst you were using Citibank's site, you could fall for it - especially since Citibank does use pop-ups.
Unfortunately many online banking/financial/payment sites seem to _require_ javascript in order to work.
:).
This is true for Citibank, and many other online banking sites.
I'm not sure why they _require_ javascript to support the basic functionality. I'd be fine with it if they only required javascript for non-basic features like "backfill", drag and drop. But lots of sites require it even for the _links_, almost as if they don't know how to use A HREF
Sure if you use webmail AND do online banking at the same time. Or browse other websites and do online banking at the same time.
For example: you could be vulnerable if you happen to view an _advert_ from a compromised/hijacked site - something like this happened recently to an advertiser that supplies ads to sites like The Register (theregister.co.uk).
I just turn javascript/active scripting off for all sites except sites I choose to trust. So this exploit (like many others) didn't work on my IE.
As for CC numbers, I'm not too worried about my credit card stuff - after all, if anything happens it's not MY money that's gone. I'm more worried about my savings/current account - coz that's MY money. So I often prefer to use my credit card instead of cash or other payment methods.
"Whales are very large. Why, they're heavy enough to crush a child! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?"
Yah, Michael Jackson will...
It'll be the same thing over again.
Have you tried the Jedi Knights II FPS games? They're not bad. Light saber and lots of naughty stuff you can do with your force powers.
It's not as big a problem as the lack of clear/decent thinking.
Usually if the brain/mind behind the bad spelling and grammar is at least half-decent, after some effort and iterations you can figure out what it wants, AND most importantly - it is more likely to be well worth the effort.
My real peeve is the Marketing Bullshit stuff you see on so many corporate documents.
What's with all these multisyllabic words and meaningless phrases? After all as the topic goes -so many people are near illiterate.
I don't agree that "formal" writing should be like that e.g. "mesh user-centric e-tailers", "maximize synergistic supply-chains".
Blaise Pascal: "Je N'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parceque je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." -- "I have only made this letter rather long because I have not had time to make it shorter."
They were just giving their customers what their customers wanted - features. And now more and more customers want security. So they're giving it to them. That's Capitalism at its best.
What I don't like about Microsoft is they are fond of dirty tricks - backstabbing partners etc (too many to list). They'll bend and break rules as long as they can get away with it, or if it works out to still be profitable to do so. This is Capitalism at its worst.
There are other very successful companies which don't behave so badly. Such practice does not appear to be endemic to their corporate cultures.
I don't see why Microsoft has to do all that bad stuff to get and stay ahead. They can write stuff that sells.
Believe me, Microsoft Word is still better than Lotus Word Pro or StarWriter. The latter two are more prone to not doing what I tell them to - e.g. text format not staying the way I specified.
Yeah, but in the IIS6 case it means a lot in the real world.
Either the exploits aren't a dime a dozen or only the real elite hackers can find them.
Or even if those people who were investigating and exploiting IIS4 and IIS5 have lost interest in IIS, it still counts for something - at least people won't have to patch IIS6 every few weeks just to avoid being taken over by some worm. It's just like people who use FireFox are much safer than those who use IE. Code quality-wise, FireFox isn't really that much safer than IE, but exploit-wise it is.
If Mr Elite Hacker somewhere in Eastern Europe can 0wn IIS6, the fact he hasn't after so long means he's just saving his exploits for special situations. Which still means safer for the average site.
In contrast Apache hasn't had a good track record, esp 2.0. I've had to update Apache way too many times to consider it a secure webserver.
Sure. The way I see it is: we have brains, the power to change things AND are already changing things whether voluntarily or not. There are 6 billion of us. The animals and plants directly under our control and responsibility number even more.
;) ).
So, we should be careful to pick the changes we want so that we have a decent time on this world (and possibly other worlds).
Trying to minimize the number of species from going extinct just for the sake of that is silly. Trying to prevent any change to the environment is silly too. But changing or allowing change to the environment without long-term consideration is irresponsible.
If whales etc have to go extinct then it better be a well thought out choice, rather than "oops".
But I sure think we'd be better off if all the bloodsucking mosquitoes go extinct and stay extinct. Sure some animals will suffer and might even go extinct if they (or their prey) don't have enough mosquitoes to eat, but NOT all will. Some will adapt and many wouldn't even notice the difference - after all there ARE other mosquitoes and insects that don't suck blood. Adapt to a human-friendly lifestyle or die (same goes for humans
Just like we'd be better off without HIV and Polio, and various _nasty_ parasites. We can live with some of the other parasites or pests (I don't like roaches, but they don't seem as harmful as the bloodsucking types of mosquitoes).
What we need is clear thinking and not irrational screaming of "Murder" etc. Sure, I'm cold and heartless, but if a species has to go extinct or suffer for the greater good of humankind, so be it.
But it better be for the greater good!
Hopefully most people don't believe "As long as things don't get totally messed up in my lifetime it's OK".
Doh. Just because I know how to make stupid statements doesn't mean I want to make one.
What if the universe results in a certain way so it gets to recreate itself again?
;)
:)
Would that be a purpose or still dumb luck?
If it created other similar universes, then perhaps that's evolution...
Repent you heathen unbeliever! :)
I can see why someone would want to be certified a CCIE or a CISSP.
;)
Just curious - what does being a Mensa member gain you? Why pay USD40+ to be a member of Mensa?
I'd think it'd look far better in your CV if you are the person all these Mensa members are paying the USD40+ to!
I'm right-handed and I use the mouse with my left hand for normal GUI work, and I use the mouse with my right hand for playing FPS games.
I started doing this when my right hand used to hurt from playing too much quake.
Some people actually thought I was left-handed!