I think the point here is to exploit the recent discovery of water on Mars. With conventional fuels you have to take the return-charge with you. Concepts like these allow them to harvest Hydrogen on Mars for the return trip, which is pretty useful. The painful detail (apart from the complexity) is the mechanism for braking - you're f*d if that fails.
I'm afraid it doesn't work like that, Rohan. The creator of content implicitly holds the copyright. He can publish it wherever he wants, giving its readers/users access to the content. Someone else does not have the right to reproduce or redistribute this content without the author's explicit consent. Re your counterexample: copyright law has been created to protect the producer of content, not the person who wants to redistribute it. No approval from the copyright holder -> no case in court.
I had the same problem a few years ago with an irreplaceable disc that had scratches. What you need to do is fill the scratches with something that mimics the optical properties of the plastic. I found that sunflower oil worked best:
Spread a drop of sunflower oil on the scratches and gently rub it open with a piece of kitchen tissue-paper or toilet paper until the whole cd is covered with it. Take a new piece of tissue and remove the excess radially: wiping from the inside out and back. Repeat this a second an third time with fresh tissue to get all oil of the surface. The scratches will be filled with oil and the cd is ready for error-free copying to the HDD.
Isn't 10E12 in the range of soft errors in computing ? The statistical change of a bit changing somewhere... how do they deal with that ? And we're just talking about the amount of URLs (basically pointers), not the amount of data.
these numbers are estimates that can be off-range a few decades. E.g. "synandrospadix vermitoxicus" yields 159 results, but if you click on the 10th page it drops to 81.
I have English as a third language, people that deal with numbers are generally aware of these double meanings.
E.g. in Dutch a "biljoen" = 10E12 and the English "billion" is "miljard" in Dutch while "triljoen" is 10E18... The linguistic term for this is "False friend" in case you're interested.
The answer you get from google depends 100% on how you ask the question. Bear in mind that offering this amount of data is prone to "granny proofing". They have to index every possible combination of words, in any language (including typo-correction) and provide it to people who don't know how to set the clock on their Âwave oven.
And no, I'm not implying that you're technophobic or incompetent.
Then you exclude all pages which include the word wikipedia (e.g. other sites which mention it and the likes). I want to exclude all the pages from wikipedia.
I know--stop trying to compete with Wikipedia and cut out Experts-Exchange.com from your search results since their pages don't actually return the information you think they do.
Since we're on the subject and people @ google are reading this: please add a chekbox that excludes Wikipedia results. The "Exclude URL Query Parameters" don't work and neither is the man on that. WP is just noise. Not pink, or brown, or white, but irritating community noise.
The guy writes an article in a blog with some basic assumptions and then puts it on/. as if it's meant to be here. Sorry, maybe we should discuss the point of this post rather than the content.
You can store the keys in video memory, you can't pull those out of a laptop. And yes, it's not only possible but also rather easy. Storing them in the lower part (first 64kb ?) which is used to display the "boot screen" will actually create an automatic sweep. Both backdoors locked.
If we say that obfuscation is necessary because one doesn't want the info to fall in the wrong hands, what's the root-problem then?
a. the fact that the info exists
b. the fact that the info is presented on a silver platter to the wrong people
c. the fact that not everyone does a timely update
Obfuscation deals with a & b, can we replace it by offering a solution for c ? Maybe one could suggest a fundamental change in the way updates are made instead of how they are presented?
Won't they still do this even if it becomes harder to decipher changelogs? The only thing changing then, is that it'll take longer for regular users to see the danger.
Bang on, what's exactly the technical difficulty in scripting something that deciphers vulnerabilities (e.g. struct leaks) from a changelog ? It may take a few days, but once it's written you'll have the same problem. So in the end you punish the regular users and give the ones you target a fun project to work on.
In defense I would state that science is too young to determine whether it's fit to answer those questions... religion has been around for ages. I know I'm going to arouse some frustration over this next line, but: did you ever extensively search your jacket for your keys just to find out that they're on the door ? Maybe there's no answer because it's a shit question, badly formulated and just misleading.
Science is no position to answer the where-did-it-all-come-from question any more than religion, and maybe even less so.
I beg to differ. Science is actively pursuing the where-did-it-all-come-from question on all fields: biology, astronomy, particle physics,... It's largely because the realm of religion slams down on every attempted explanation that "where did it all come from" is associated with spirituality.
I haven't seen big advances on answering those questions with religion... they mostly settle for a "STFU and hope" - approach. Unless off course one sees ID as the latest advance in religion.
In no position? Science has the front row tickets for this game.
So, if nature we're observing is too complex to have evolved through a basic set of rules and requires a divine creator to come into existence ... then who the hell created the supercomplex deity ?
Slashdot Mirror
What about yesterday's news of a Hydrogen plasma drive ?
You poop, you breath, you accelerate
I think the point here is to exploit the recent discovery of water on Mars. With conventional fuels you have to take the return-charge with you. Concepts like these allow them to harvest Hydrogen on Mars for the return trip, which is pretty useful. The painful detail (apart from the complexity) is the mechanism for braking - you're f*d if that fails.
I'm afraid it doesn't work like that, Rohan. The creator of content implicitly holds the copyright. He can publish it wherever he wants, giving its readers/users access to the content. Someone else does not have the right to reproduce or redistribute this content without the author's explicit consent.
Re your counterexample: copyright law has been created to protect the producer of content, not the person who wants to redistribute it. No approval from the copyright holder -> no case in court.
I had the same problem a few years ago with an irreplaceable disc that had scratches. What you need to do is fill the scratches with something that mimics the optical properties of the plastic. I found that sunflower oil worked best:
Spread a drop of sunflower oil on the scratches and gently rub it open with a piece of kitchen tissue-paper or toilet paper until the whole cd is covered with it. Take a new piece of tissue and remove the excess radially: wiping from the inside out and back. Repeat this a second an third time with fresh tissue to get all oil of the surface. The scratches will be filled with oil and the cd is ready for error-free copying to the HDD.
wouldn't uploading one's own copyrighted music imply the conveyance of legal right to have that music?
Nope, you need explicit approval.
that's actually pretty plausible
Isn't 10E12 in the range of soft errors in computing ? The statistical change of a bit changing somewhere ... how do they deal with that ? And we're just talking about the amount of URLs (basically pointers), not the amount of data.
these numbers are estimates that can be off-range a few decades. E.g. "synandrospadix vermitoxicus" yields 159 results, but if you click on the 10th page it drops to 81.
I have English as a third language, people that deal with numbers are generally aware of these double meanings. ... The linguistic term for this is "False friend" in case you're interested.
E.g. in Dutch a "biljoen" = 10E12 and the English "billion" is "miljard" in Dutch while "triljoen" is 10E18
The answer you get from google depends 100% on how you ask the question.
Bear in mind that offering this amount of data is prone to "granny proofing". They have to index every possible combination of words, in any language (including typo-correction) and provide it to people who don't know how to set the clock on their Âwave oven.
And no, I'm not implying that you're technophobic or incompetent.
Then you exclude all pages which include the word wikipedia (e.g. other sites which mention it and the likes). I want to exclude all the pages from wikipedia.
Thanks for the helping hand, though.
I know--stop trying to compete with Wikipedia and cut out Experts-Exchange.com from your search results since their pages don't actually return the information you think they do.
Since we're on the subject and people @ google are reading this: please add a chekbox that excludes Wikipedia results. The "Exclude URL Query Parameters" don't work and neither is the man on that. WP is just noise. Not pink, or brown, or white, but irritating community noise.
The guy writes an article in a blog with some basic assumptions and then puts it on /. as if it's meant to be here. Sorry, maybe we should discuss the point of this post rather than the content.
You can store the keys in video memory, you can't pull those out of a laptop. And yes, it's not only possible but also rather easy. Storing them in the lower part (first 64kb ?) which is used to display the "boot screen" will actually create an automatic sweep. Both backdoors locked.
If we say that obfuscation is necessary because one doesn't want the info to fall in the wrong hands, what's the root-problem then?
a. the fact that the info exists
b. the fact that the info is presented on a silver platter to the wrong people
c. the fact that not everyone does a timely update
Obfuscation deals with a & b, can we replace it by offering a solution for c ? Maybe one could suggest a fundamental change in the way updates are made instead of how they are presented?
Won't they still do this even if it becomes harder to decipher changelogs? The only thing changing then, is that it'll take longer for regular users to see the danger.
Bang on, what's exactly the technical difficulty in scripting something that deciphers vulnerabilities (e.g. struct leaks) from a changelog ? It may take a few days, but once it's written you'll have the same problem. So in the end you punish the regular users and give the ones you target a fun project to work on.
oh, now I'm following you, my mistake.
... religion has been around for ages. I know I'm going to arouse some frustration over this next line, but: did you ever extensively search your jacket for your keys just to find out that they're on the door ? Maybe there's no answer because it's a shit question, badly formulated and just misleading.
In defense I would state that science is too young to determine whether it's fit to answer those questions
Never explain a joke. Ever.
Science is no position to answer the where-did-it-all-come-from question any more than religion, and maybe even less so.
I beg to differ. Science is actively pursuing the where-did-it-all-come-from question on all fields: biology, astronomy, particle physics, ... It's largely because the realm of religion slams down on every attempted explanation that "where did it all come from" is associated with spirituality.
... they mostly settle for a "STFU and hope" - approach. Unless off course one sees ID as the latest advance in religion.
I haven't seen big advances on answering those questions with religion
In no position? Science has the front row tickets for this game.
"...and start thinking critically"
OK, why does the Pope have testicles ?
Answer: no ID
So, if nature we're observing is too complex to have evolved through a basic set of rules and requires a divine creator to come into existence
... then who the hell created the supercomplex deity ?
I smell a new religion folks.