Bob and Carol agree their clocks are synchonized, but you and Alice agree they're wrong, and Bob's clock is behind (though running at the same speed as Carol's).
I agree that from my and Alice's point Bob and Carols Clock are not synchronized, but from what I figured out, it should be Carol's clock that seems to be behind Bob: If a flashlight is placed in the middle between them, then from my and Alice's point the flash will reach Bob before it will reach Carol, since Bob is moving towards it and Carol away from it. From their perspective it will reach them at the same time, so to me Carol's clock must be behind Bob's. This way an instant message from Carol to Bob will appear to me as going backwards in time, and if it is the same message I just send instantly to Alice, then it will reach me before I sent it.
You could add a third group moving the opposite direction, but it would only make the brain hurt.
My brain is hurting already anyway:)
If Bob and Carol aren't moving at "relativistic speed" the example isn't very interesting, right? You're all in the same frame of reference, and nothing odd is happening. You can't choose just some effects of relativity and have a valid example, right?
well, I am not sure if this is correct, but this is how I meant it: The clock discrepancy that is required for this paradox will be greater, the further away Alice and me are. If we are in different galaxies (but still at rest to each other:-) then even if Bob and Carol just walk slowly, their common 'now' will seem 'skewed' a lot to me, i.e. Bob's clock will show 15:00 a lot sooner than Alice's clock.
This way I was hoping to avoid any other odd relativistic effects I might have forgotten that do not increase with distance.
Althought I have to admit that this involves some handwaving, and I probably should have just left it out.
The toll both example is very interesting, and I think this is essentially the same paradox. But it seems that while it looks like a paradox, there won't be any actual contradiction as long as no faster-than-light signal is involved.
If the ship's front can send an instant signal to the ship's middle "Hey, I am just passing the front gate, it is already open, hide the ez-tag!" at this moment (nice illustration btw)...
Spaceship's frame of reference:
>>>>*>>>>
==*== . . . ..front gate opens, both gates *open*
...then from the ship's point of view it can avoid paying the toll, since the front gate has opened early and the ez-tag has not yet been read. But from the tollbooths frame of reference the ship's front just sent a message back in time to the ship's middle, because...
Tollbooth's frame of reference: ...at this moment the message departs from the front:
|.>>*>>
====*==== . . . ..front gate opens ...and at this earlier moment it arrives at the middle:
|>>*>>.|
====*==== . . . ..rear gate closes, both gates *closed*
Now we have a problem, did the spaceship pay or not?
As long as no faster-than-light signal is involved, the sequence migth look like a paradox, but none of the participants can do something as contradictory as in the above example.
Please tell me if that made any sense. I find this subject very interesting, althought I admid I'm in way over my head.
- blackhat uses the exploit for general cracking - exploit gets published - blackhat thinks "Darn, gotta cover my tracks and generate some confusion", and starts the worm
No insider information neccessary in this scenario to explain the quickness
First, neither of the participants (me, Alice, Bob, Carol or A,B,C,D in your example) has to move at a very fast speed. Provided we have a way to send messages to each other instantly (or arbitrary close to instantly), it should work with me and Alice standing somewhere, and Bob and Carol walking in the same direction as each other.
Second, to avoid any complications with adjacency (I hope), lets say that next to me are a million Bob clones in a row, walking past me one at a time, in the general direction of Alice, and next to Alice are a million Carol clones walking past her in the same direction.
- I send an 'instant' message to Alice. - Alice gives it to the next Carol clone, as soon as she gets it. - Carol sends it instantly to every Bob clone. - the next Bob clone to pass me after receiving the message gives it to me.
Because the frame of reference of the clones is not the same as my and alice's frame of reference, the message should arrive slightly bevore I sent it.
It seems to me that this way no assumption about the order of events is neccessary. No matter in which order the other participants perceive the events, as long as they forward the message as soon as they receive it, it will get to me before I sent it.
If you travel more than a light year in less than a year, you've made a "time-like" journey. Theories about wormholes mostly permit this. That implies some strange causality, but not nearly as strange as what's ordinarily thought of as time travel. You still can't send yourself a signal "from the future", or affect your own past, even with multiple hops.
actually I think you can. here is a page explaining how sending messages to your own past is possible, provided you have a few friends and a method of sending messages instantly, but it really works the same way with any message sent faster than light.
If you can transport matter faster than light, then you can do the same and send for example yourself back to your own past.
I do not think there is a way around that if you have faster-than-light or timelike journeys
good point. One thing that seems to a bit difficult to explain with this would be Luke lifting the spaceship in the swamp, or C3PO. But maybe the rule is just "no solid matter between you and the target". Or maybe Luke can do some stuff that Obi Wan simply cannot.
On the risk of sounding stupid (oops, to late anyway):
-Spoiler-
At the start of ep. 3 Anakin and Obi Wan's ships were attacked by some homing missiles and a buch of little robot kritters.
Why did neither of them use the force to just 'wave' them away? Especially the robots gave Obi Wan some trouble, but they were right next to him and seemed pretty lightweight, so why not simply push them off the ship?
Does the force not work in a vakuum? Unlike sound, which apparently does?
But once as PC is infected, the hijacker could integrate itself into windows, and reinfect any program you uninstall the moment you reinstall it again.
Malware already rewrites deleted registry keys, restarts killed processes, and so on. The only reason this particular hijacker might not have the capability to reinfect IE is because it is almost impossible to remove IE anyway.
If a windows PC was infected, and you are not absolutely sure whether you have removed the infection, the only way is a complete reinstall
I doubt that would work, it has not worked with usenet at all.
Most usenet servers limit posts to a relatively small size, and high ascii characters are severely restricted.
Still, today a full usenet feed is several terrabytes per day, and 99% of it are binaries
heck, IIRC there are some guys that share binaries uuencoded throught slashdot journals
I think a subset of freenet only for text files would be usefull, also because the much higher size and greater popularity of certain binaries would drown most of the text content, but I do not see a way to enforce such restrictions
Re:Unfortunately, not a troll
on
Revamping Freenet
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
how do you know what was on your node? I thought that was one of the points, that noone can reasonably find out what is on his node?
This doesn't make any sense. How is the user capable, or how has the user been capable to display information on the Web (not the internet, just a part) with a web browser.
Remember, this like this never happened before this FF extension, so where do you come off saying that?
I have been doing stuff like this with proxomitron for years. There are other tools that can do the same. If you did not know about them then you probably did not bother to look. But surely you do know that almost all browsers at least let the user change default colors and fonts.
One thing I did with proxomitron was changing slashdot's color cheme to bright text on dark background for a while. other things were disabling animated gifs, turning flash animations into links, and so on.
It is my browser, and I decide how it displays stuff.
the article talks about robots assembling copies of themselves by joining *three* pre-manufactured parts, which have magnetic joints for easier assembly.
does not sound that impressive to me. And i find it doubtfully that noone was able to do this before. more like noone tried.
Each link in the search results on google has a onmousedown event attached.
If you have javascript enabled and click on it, then your browser will also execute the javascript, which sends a get request to google. They do log each link you click on.
check the source of any google search page. The function that gets called for each onmousedown is called clk():
function clk(el,ct,cd){if(document.images){(new Image()).src="/url?sa=T&ct="+escape(ct)+"&cd="+esc ape(cd)+"&url="+escape(el.href).replace(/\+/g,"%2B ")+"&ei=gwKBQoX7GJKmQcONmN4B";}return true;}
on a completely unrelated note, a school i know has started to teach foreign language (english) and history in the same class. the idea is that the whole class will be spoken in english, but the subject is history, that way children learn both. So far it seems to work ok, plans are to extend this to other subjects as well.
I think what's going on here is that I'm targetting a different market (oh God, what have I become), than on Google adwords. Since it's an expected advertising environment, they want you to use strong "advertiser" words like that.
Here, since it's just a forum, people don't want stuff that's as blaring or strong.
Lesson learned. I do programming for a living, so I'm new to add this. Thanks for being patient:)
Here's what I don't get: When I want to find a hosting solution, i fire up google. Or I grab the latest issue of my computer magazine that has a review of different hosters. Or I ask some friend that already has hosting.
But I definitely do not go to slashdot and hope to find some solution in a random sig.
So if I am here, reading slashdot, you can be pretty sure that I am not interested in something like this.
Are there that many people that are? ("Oh, interesting story, lets read the comments. Oh, shiny ad for a hosting solution, lets stop reading slashdot and look at that instead.") Seriosly, I can't imagine that.
I really wish there were a way to just have my ad pop up for people who actually are interested in what I have to offer. Then I can leave everyone else the hell alone.
Those who are really interested in what you want to offer, are seeking for you. Those who are not seeking for you, but instead are reading some website, or watching tv, or listening to the radio, are right nownot interested in you.
If you honestly only want to target people that are interested in you, you could for example try placing an add on google for the keyword "hosting". Or you could just make sure your site is found on google when someone searches for it. lots of options, none is perfect, but placing ads on random websites/stumbleupon/radio will not help you there.
Some of the people you target there might get interested, but all of them are at that time obviously more interested in someting else.
the way i understood it, there are two passwords: user password and administrator password.
Access to the harddrive will only be prevented if the user password is set, but the user password can only be set when the administrator password is known.
So if I only set the administrator password, then the drive can be accessed as usual, but the user password cannot be set by some software.
Sounds good But I think a better approach im most cases is what firefox and IE are currently doing with their info-bar (the yellow thingy) in some occasions
Do not show a modal dialog, instead show a non-modal message: "this applet is being prevented from accessing your harddrive, click here to learn more or change that behavior" The message should dissapear after a while on its own.
it would be more like amazon.com.x checksum could be a single letter and if that letter is missing, the browser could just generate it
But if the checksum is wrong, like in amazzon.com.x, it would not be the amazzon webserver that is rejecting the the request, but the browser (or dns server). could be automated with a message "Checksum incorrect, do you want to go there anyway?"
Still, I know the idea as it is now has as much chance to get widespread as a snowball in hell, but why should that stop me?:)
Slashdot Mirror
If a flashlight is placed in the middle between them, then from my and Alice's point the flash will reach Bob before it will reach Carol, since Bob is moving towards it and Carol away from it.
From their perspective it will reach them at the same time, so to me Carol's clock must be behind Bob's.
This way an instant message from Carol to Bob will appear to me as going backwards in time, and if it is the same message I just send instantly to Alice, then it will reach me before I sent it.
My brain is hurting already anyway
well, I am not sure if this is correct, but this is how I meant it: The clock discrepancy that is required for this paradox will be greater, the further away Alice and me are. If we are in different galaxies (but still at rest to each otherThis way I was hoping to avoid any other odd relativistic effects I might have forgotten that do not increase with distance.
Althought I have to admit that this involves some handwaving, and I probably should have just left it out.
...then from the ship's point of view it can avoid paying the toll, since the front gate has opened early and the ez-tag has not yet been read.The toll both example is very interesting, and I think this is essentially the same paradox.
But it seems that while it looks like a paradox, there won't be any actual contradiction as long as no faster-than-light signal is involved.
If the ship's front can send an instant signal to the ship's middle "Hey, I am just passing the front gate, it is already open, hide the ez-tag!" at this moment (nice illustration btw)...
But from the tollbooths frame of reference the ship's front just sent a message back in time to the ship's middle, because... Now we have a problem, did the spaceship pay or not?
As long as no faster-than-light signal is involved, the sequence migth look like a paradox, but none of the participants can do something as contradictory as in the above example.
Please tell me if that made any sense. I find this subject very interesting, althought I admid I'm in way over my head.
He is a Wookie that went to the dark side, and used to much of that purple lightning (just look how it affected Palpatine).
The shock of his changed appearance made him repent and return to the good side.
This also explains why he is on such good terms with the wookies in ROTS
I assumed it worked in this order:
- blackhat uses the exploit for general cracking
- exploit gets published
- blackhat thinks "Darn, gotta cover my tracks and generate some confusion", and starts the worm
No insider information neccessary in this scenario to explain the quickness
hmm...
Let's see wheter this makes sense:
First, neither of the participants (me, Alice, Bob, Carol or A,B,C,D in your example) has to move at a very fast speed.
Provided we have a way to send messages to each other instantly (or arbitrary close to instantly), it should work with me and Alice standing somewhere, and Bob and Carol walking in the same direction as each other.
Second, to avoid any complications with adjacency (I hope), lets say that next to me are a million Bob clones in a row, walking past me one at a time, in the general direction of Alice, and next to Alice are a million Carol clones walking past her in the same direction.
- I send an 'instant' message to Alice.
- Alice gives it to the next Carol clone, as soon as she gets it.
- Carol sends it instantly to every Bob clone.
- the next Bob clone to pass me after receiving the message gives it to me.
Because the frame of reference of the clones is not the same as my and alice's frame of reference, the message should arrive slightly bevore I sent it.
It seems to me that this way no assumption about the order of events is neccessary. No matter in which order the other participants perceive the events, as long as they forward the message as soon as they receive it, it will get to me before I sent it.
actually I think you can.
here is a page explaining how sending messages to your own past is possible, provided you have a few friends and a method of sending messages instantly, but it really works the same way with any message sent faster than light.
If you can transport matter faster than light, then you can do the same and send for example yourself back to your own past.
I do not think there is a way around that if you have faster-than-light or timelike journeys
good point.
One thing that seems to a bit difficult to explain with this would be Luke lifting the spaceship in the swamp, or C3PO.
But maybe the rule is just "no solid matter between you and the target". Or maybe Luke can do some stuff that Obi Wan simply cannot.
On the risk of sounding stupid (oops, to late anyway):
-Spoiler-
At the start of ep. 3 Anakin and Obi Wan's ships were attacked by some homing missiles and a buch of little robot kritters.
Why did neither of them use the force to just 'wave' them away? Especially the robots gave Obi Wan some trouble, but they were right next to him and seemed pretty lightweight, so why not simply push them off the ship?
Does the force not work in a vakuum? Unlike sound, which apparently does?
But once as PC is infected, the hijacker could integrate itself into windows, and reinfect any program you uninstall the moment you reinstall it again.
Malware already rewrites deleted registry keys, restarts killed processes, and so on. The only reason this particular hijacker might not have the capability to reinfect IE is because it is almost impossible to remove IE anyway.
If a windows PC was infected, and you are not absolutely sure whether you have removed the infection, the only way is a complete reinstall
I doubt that would work, it has not worked with usenet at all.
Most usenet servers limit posts to a relatively small size, and high ascii characters are severely restricted.
Still, today a full usenet feed is several terrabytes per day, and 99% of it are binaries
heck, IIRC there are some guys that share binaries uuencoded throught slashdot journals
I think a subset of freenet only for text files would be usefull, also because the much higher size and greater popularity of certain binaries would drown most of the text content, but I do not see a way to enforce such restrictions
how do you know what was on your node?
I thought that was one of the points, that noone can reasonably find out what is on his node?
I won't be the last to say it, and probably not the first either:
you can always fork. If you do not agree with the current developers' direction, fork.
I have been doing stuff like this with proxomitron for years. There are other tools that can do the same. If you did not know about them then you probably did not bother to look.
But surely you do know that almost all browsers at least let the user change default colors and fonts.
One thing I did with proxomitron was changing slashdot's color cheme to bright text on dark background for a while.
other things were disabling animated gifs, turning flash animations into links, and so on.
It is my browser, and I decide how it displays stuff.
thank you!
the article talks about robots assembling copies of themselves by joining *three* pre-manufactured parts, which have magnetic joints for easier assembly.
does not sound that impressive to me.
And i find it doubtfully that noone was able to do this before. more like noone tried.
i get logging javascript on any of these links in IE, but none if I visit them with opera
while I own a gmail account, I can get the tracking javascript even when using wget.
(no cookies --> no way for google to check whether I have gmail)
It is not per se evil that google is tracking external links, but it is interesting to know.
At least their current method does not interfere with my browsers ability to display visited links in another color.
i look at this page:
http://www.google.com/search?q=test
The first result link looks like this:at least in IE.
In opera the javascript is missing
try this (remove the space before the ?):compared to this:the first page contains the javascript but the second does not, at least on my system.
Can anyone confirm that?
Each link in the search results on google has a onmousedown event attached.
If you have javascript enabled and click on it, then your browser will also execute the javascript, which sends a get request to google. They do log each link you click on.
check the source of any google search page.
The function that gets called for each onmousedown is called clk():
on a completely unrelated note, a school i know has started to teach foreign language (english) and history in the same class. the idea is that the whole class will be spoken in english, but the subject is history, that way children learn both.
So far it seems to work ok, plans are to extend this to other subjects as well.
I think what's going on here is that I'm targetting a different market (oh God, what have I become), than on Google adwords. Since it's an expected advertising environment, they want you to use strong "advertiser" words like that.
:)
Here, since it's just a forum, people don't want stuff that's as blaring or strong.
Lesson learned. I do programming for a living, so I'm new to add this. Thanks for being patient
Here's what I don't get:
When I want to find a hosting solution, i fire up google. Or I grab the latest issue of my computer magazine that has a review of different hosters. Or I ask some friend that already has hosting.
But I definitely do not go to slashdot and hope to find some solution in a random sig.
So if I am here, reading slashdot, you can be pretty sure that I am not interested in something like this.
Are there that many people that are?
("Oh, interesting story, lets read the comments. Oh, shiny ad for a hosting solution, lets stop reading slashdot and look at that instead.")
Seriosly, I can't imagine that.
I really wish there were a way to just have my ad pop up for people who actually are interested in what I have to offer. Then I can leave everyone else the hell alone.
Those who are really interested in what you want to offer, are seeking for you.
Those who are not seeking for you, but instead are reading some website, or watching tv, or listening to the radio, are right now not interested in you.
If you honestly only want to target people that are interested in you, you could for example try placing an add on google for the keyword "hosting". Or you could just make sure your site is found on google when someone searches for it. lots of options, none is perfect, but placing ads on random websites/stumbleupon/radio will not help you there.
Some of the people you target there might get interested, but all of them are at that time obviously more interested in someting else.
the way i understood it, there are two passwords: user password and administrator password.
Access to the harddrive will only be prevented if the user password is set, but the user password can only be set when the administrator password is known.
So if I only set the administrator password, then the drive can be accessed as usual, but the user password cannot be set by some software.
Correct? or did I misunderstand that?
Sounds good
But I think a better approach im most cases is what firefox and IE are currently doing with their info-bar (the yellow thingy) in some occasions
Do not show a modal dialog, instead show a non-modal message:
"this applet is being prevented from accessing your harddrive, click here to learn more or change that behavior"
The message should dissapear after a while on its own.
it would be more like amazon.com.x
:)
checksum could be a single letter
and if that letter is missing, the browser could just generate it
But if the checksum is wrong, like in amazzon.com.x, it would not be the amazzon webserver that is rejecting the the request, but the browser (or dns server).
could be automated with a message "Checksum incorrect, do you want to go there anyway?"
Still, I know the idea as it is now has as much chance to get widespread as a snowball in hell, but why should that stop me?
sure, but urls are often typed in from memory or from an ad or similar.
the checksum would be *part* of the url.
do not get me wrong, I know how to bookmark, and I rarely have a problem with misspelled webpages.
But obviosly a lot of users do have these problems.