Why not maintain a site-wide dictionary? Of course, if you want to save your own time only, you can only buy one. Actually, this is an area where users may help openoffice to become more successful. Create and maintain a scientific terms spelling database. Make it an optional extension for the spell checker.
There is a rather good tool available here:
http://www.hexten.net/sw/pam_abl/
I think it is already in the 'extras' list of fedora (if you use that).
The connection actually doesn't get dropped, so the attacker does not know if his
'guess' was actually processed. It can protect all pam authorized services.
"Gates, as always, has high hopes for this new version of Windows, even claiming it to be as powerful and easier to use than Linux."
You mean, Windows is becoming even worse now? I thought he usually claimed, Windows is far superiour to just about
everything out there.
Yes, Mac OS X surface is nice. The problem is, what can you do if you need something which isn't provided by the GUI? I often need additional software tools, in particular related to programming and special scientific software. You can go and start compiling all the software by hand, or find them pre-compiled. In Linux, you will find almost everything as binary package. This effectively reduces the amount of work required to get something exotic installed. Of course, if all you do is using programs like Office or iTunes, than a mac is very easy to use. Actually, there exist some package libraries for osx too (like ipackages), but it is quite painful to keep a bunch of osx systems up-to-date with this. What apple needs is an application database like RPM or debian PKG manager. Something ordinary users can install. OSX comes with some gcc version installed. How do you install a different version? Multiple Versions? This is something I would need with osx.
Well, if one can get sued for releasing a buggy code, everone programming for profit is going to be jailed. Seriously, software is sold 'as is', or you must pay a million for a simple text editor.
It is not a surprise that Windows users switch to Mac: they have nearly the same applications available without the headaches from Windows. Not that windows is unusable, but if you consider that you have to run a virus checker all time slowing down everything you do is clearly an issue.
However, I'm wondering why so many linux users switch to mac as well. Yes, you can finally use powerpoint and word, but you loose independence from vendors. I like mac, but I do not like people advocating it like the new heaven. It's not. And it's actually running many open software tools in the background without an easy way to choose. Example: it runs cups as a print server. What if you do not want to use cups? Or need a newer version and you do not want to pay for an upgrade (the one which came with 10.1 does not talk to linux cups servers well)? What about the compilers? It comes with gcc, but perhaps you need a different version of it? In Linux, whatever distribution, you can change these things easily. Just install the package you like. Apple is not going to create a package database because they want to keep everything under control.
In my opinion, an mac is good for laptop use (unless you replace your desktop). I wouldn't want to buy a mac server, however. Simply because hardware is more expensive, and you cannot install software as easily (unless you use the software apple provides of course).
This looks like a C++ interpreter with several preset classes. For me this is not necesssarily the
best way to allow easy computer usage. But it is probably great for writing quick and dirty GUI tools.
It is certainly nice for programming, but a bit overkill for normal
command line usage. Actually, I think they should just accept bash as defacto industry standard. Techies install cygwin tools anyway. And the GUI tools could be written in python.
The simple answer is: nothing is really gained by this. Why is english the
language of the world? Because it is rather simple. Chinese won't replace
english for the same reason. I would never ever consider writing a program with
non-ascii characters, besides perhaps accented characters in strings. The reason
is also very simple: have you ever tried to port a program to a different platform?
I did it many times. Only the ASCII part survived. Sure, you may create a better
standard than ASCII, but if you use it for programming, it will not improve your life.
Abstraction is the core of every program. Nothing is gained by replacing != with something more readable if you have to define odd looking names all the time. In fact,
it only makes it harder to read if you happen to run in technical difficulties with
the new character set.
Nice article. I recall that you can drive these waves about 4 times faster than sound waves. Since kinetic energy goes like velocity to the square, this means up to 16 times more power (in theory). So this means in theory you can save 1/16 of the fuell (assuming
the same kind of fuel for normal and magnetic propulsion), and possibly even more because
you need less energy to drive the lighter rocket. Saving only 90% seems to be a conservative estimate.
BTW, please do also provide links to the original article if you use babelfish. Most people prefer to read the original if they can.
I do not understand why such 'scientists' or 'doctors' even try this. Isn't earth already overpopulated? We need to find ways to reduce population not increase it.
Read what Isaac Asimov had to say about his: http://www.emi.u-bordeaux.fr/public/asimov/saveear th.html
Or in short:
Overpopulation -> polution -> climate change -> New Orleans
Quote: "By 2000 A.D., the carbon dioxide content of the air may have increased by one third beyond today's content. This won't interfere with our breathing noticeably, but it will conserve more of the heat Earth receives from the sun so that Earth's average temperature will go up somewhat. This will change the weather pattern, probably for the worse, and increase the rate at which the polar ice-caps melt, raising the sea-level noticeably and causing coastal areas to suffer more from high tides and storms - in short, the greenhouse effect."
Hi, at least with Windows XP it did not! And it has a valid license. Automatic updates worked until that 'genuine advantage' thing, when I had to run it manually (to install the new update wizard). Only after that the genuine advantage installed and only after that security updates have been installed.
It strikes me odd, that this important security patch
arrived *after* the genuine advantage update.
After the genuine advantage update all our windows computers
stopped making automatic updates and therefore the genuine
advantage was not patched as quickly as possible. Manual
interaction was required to accept the 'genuine advantage'
update. I wonder how many users out there stopped watching
their automatic update function to work correctly. What is the
advantage of having automatic updates if you have to monitor
them? What is advantage is meant in 'genuine advantage'?
And why do they now publish this information, when many people
out there will not have applied the patch simply because they
believe they still have automatic updates running?
The authors say it would be very difficult to detect the presence of the marks if they are encrypted.
The authors also assume that it is the serial number of the printers. What if this is not the case? The most simply way to avoid anybody find out about the marks is to write a secret serial number unencrypted to the paper. Nobody would be able to find out, because the mapping of secret serial number to public serial number would be kept secret. Add to this some randomness by printing additional but meaningless data as well, and it will make it necessary to print a very large number of pages until you find the pattern repeating. And of course, change the method details every couple of years.
So lets find a solution which is ok with falling debris. How about adding some lightweight cover on the sensitive shuttle parts? Something which quickly
falls off when the shuttle reaches high velocity (air pressure) or evaporates when it reenters the atmosphere?
This Z80 based beast was fantastic simple. I disassembled the BIOS, the DOS (NEWDOS it was called), the BIOS Basic interpreter including the math routines, the floppy disk format routines. The DOS was running from a floppy, your program/data was on another. I made custom system floppys which run much faster (optimized disk storage of OS modules). I improved the keyboard driver to respond better, and it was all just for fun at an age of 14. Finally, I moved to MS-DOS 2.11 and wrote some fancy parallel port transfer program because I had no means to transfer data between the incompatible systems.
But these days, I'm much more happy with Linux. I understand it almost as good. Never liked the windows world.
There is an alternate theory for gravity called 'MOND', but it has not been shown yet if it works for structure formation. It is based on the assumption, that beyond some length scale, gravity becomes weaker - possibly because of gravity leaking out to higher dimensions. This can be done with M-branes in string theory. Hey, but string theory is also not proofen and is basically a theoretical toy theory so far. Basically, MOND just replaces one problem with another - instead of having to explain dark matter (there many candidates for what it might be including ongoing experiments on earth to find in a lab), you replace well known general relativity with something yet to be worked out in detail and not proofen. Of course, all these possibilities have to be checked out, if we want to get a better understanding of nature.
BTW, redshift is not a byproduct of big bang, even in an infinite steady-state universe, there would be the same red shift. The difference is, that in a closed universe with big bang you can only look back in time until you see the big bang itself (before that the universe was not transparent for light waves). And this is observed in the so-called microwave background. So we actually can SEE the big bang going off, by just looking at high redshift. And fluctuations in this light coming from all directions tell us that it was very smooth and constant all over the place. Only small fluctuations exists and those are to little to let galaxies pull together the mass they have today if you do not invoke some additional force (gravity of dark matter!). The standard theory explains all these details at high redshift and the subsequent formation of large scale structure very well. The problem on galactic scales are details which have to do with feedback from the evolving galaxies. This is not understood in detail, yet.
There is no clear evidence. But there is plenty of evidence for a big bang and the large scale structure formation visible in the galaxy distribution with redshift. The large scale structure is very well explained by this kind of model. The big questions now are, can we find dark matter nearby and can we explain how galaxies form within such dark matter halos.
The problem with this kind of science is, that people are so happy with the 'media' that they forget the 'message'. Cold dark matter forming dark halos in an expanding universe have been very successful in explaining the large scale structure, but fail miserably at the not so small scale of individual galaxies. These models are just tests of the theory, not a replacement of reality. It doesn't make sense to have a perfect simulation of the universe - why duplicate it? It only makes sense to try to understand and improve the theory. Tell me what is new about taking more particles to simulate the same physics? It will still not hold on small scales. Of course simulating magnetic fields, radiation, details of the interstellar medium and the actual star formation process is difficult. But instead of using shear computer power to do the simple model more accurate doesn't quite cut it.
This is the first resonable plan I hear about moon or mars exploration. Why send humans? It makes much more sense to develope space exploration robots with artificial intelligence. Once there is enough power production and a working environment for people, we can still send scientists and others to do what only humans can do. At the moment, sending a human to moon or mars would only be a survival experiment.
Just boot into memtest86 or customize a tomsrbl (stand-alone linux floppy distro).
In a cluster, I would load it
using memdisk via dhcp and tftp.
Your pxe boot config would look like:
prompt=0
label test
kernel floppy
append floppy.img
This boots from the floppy image (without
needing any floppy drive.
memtest86 will start using 100% cpu testing your memory. This way you have nicely tested you memory as well (if you have a screen to look at the result). Don't know if this would be enough for a dual processor machine, but then you may just modify the source code and make your custom version of it. Or get the tomsrbl linux distro floppy, do the same, but customize it to run some endless loop programs written in c. You can then easily add some code to utilize your hard disk as well (if nodes have local disks).
I.e.: endless loop in bash script:
while true; do echo nothing>/dev/null; done
Do it twice with disk test:
(while true; do echo nothing>/dev/null; done)&
(while true; do echo nothing>/dev/null; done)&
while true; do dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/null; done
So the matter is repelled at the horizon when matter falls apart, thus the black hole cannot swallow the mass of the collapsing star? How does he get a horizon then firsthand? Without a collapse he cannot have this effect. When there is a horizon and he is right with his claims, this would only mean once formed a black hole would not grow. However, the existence of Sgr A* already proofs this is wrong, because there are no stars with 4 10^6 solar masses to form it in a collapse. It needs to be grown out of accreted material (which he claims is impossible). He also doesn't explain how the negative energy can collapse (and where it comes from). So he replaces one problem with another one.
So NASA decides a robot mission to rescue HST is not feasable, but the same time they develope this kind of mission for other purposes? Makes we wonder if NASA is just helping the Pentagon to build new SDI technology. Clearly, HST is not something the Bush administration is interested in. Instead he wants telescopes like SPITZER which are infrared cameras - ideal for observing the earth. I wonder how many infrared telescopes build for the secret service are already monitoring us...
As a system admin for about 50 computer systems running different types of unix, I cannot see why/etc is considered a mess. It is only a few megabytes at most and provides easy filebased access to all important configuration files. Using your package manager of choice, you can easily find out which files in/etc belong to which program.
If anything, I would suggest files in/etc to be cfengine friendly. A registry is nothing else but human readable/etc files + cfengine site managment functionallity.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not maintain a site-wide dictionary? Of course, if you want to save your
own time only, you can only buy one. Actually, this is an area where users
may help openoffice to become more successful. Create and maintain a scientific
terms spelling database. Make it an optional extension for the spell checker.
There is a rather good tool available here: http://www.hexten.net/sw/pam_abl/ I think it is already in the 'extras' list of fedora (if you use that). The connection actually doesn't get dropped, so the attacker does not know if his 'guess' was actually processed. It can protect all pam authorized services.
"Gates, as always, has high hopes for this new version of Windows, even claiming it to be as powerful and easier to use than Linux." You mean, Windows is becoming even worse now? I thought he usually claimed, Windows is far superiour to just about everything out there.
Yes, Mac OS X surface is nice. The problem is, what can you do if you need something which isn't provided by the GUI? I often need additional software tools, in particular related
to programming and special scientific software. You can go and start compiling all the software by hand, or find them pre-compiled. In Linux, you will find almost everything
as binary package. This effectively reduces the amount of work required to get something
exotic installed. Of course, if all you do is using programs like Office or iTunes, than a
mac is very easy to use. Actually, there exist some package libraries for osx too (like ipackages), but it is quite painful to keep a bunch of osx systems up-to-date with this.
What apple needs is an application database like RPM or debian PKG manager. Something ordinary users can install. OSX comes with some gcc version installed. How do you install a different version? Multiple Versions? This is something I would need with osx.
Well, if one can get sued for releasing a buggy code, everone programming for profit is
going to be jailed. Seriously, software is sold 'as is', or you must pay a million for a
simple text editor.
It is not a surprise that Windows users switch to Mac: they have nearly the same applications available without the headaches from Windows. Not that windows is unusable, but if you consider that you have to run a virus checker all time slowing down everything you do is clearly an issue.
However, I'm wondering why so many linux users switch to mac as well. Yes, you can finally use powerpoint and word, but you loose independence from vendors. I like mac, but I do not
like people advocating it like the new heaven. It's not. And it's actually running many open
software tools in the background without an easy way to choose. Example: it runs cups as a print server. What if you do not want to use cups? Or need a newer version and you do not want to pay for an upgrade (the one which came with 10.1 does not talk to linux cups servers well)? What about the compilers? It comes with gcc, but perhaps you need a different version of it? In Linux, whatever distribution, you can change these things easily. Just install the package you like. Apple is not going to create a
package database because they want to keep everything under control.
In my opinion, an mac is good for laptop use (unless you replace your desktop). I wouldn't want to buy a mac server, however. Simply because hardware is more expensive, and you cannot install software as easily (unless you use the software apple provides of course).
This looks like a C++ interpreter with several preset classes. For me this is not necesssarily the best way to allow easy computer usage. But it is probably great for writing quick and dirty GUI tools. It is certainly nice for programming, but a bit overkill for normal command line usage. Actually, I think they should just accept bash as defacto industry standard. Techies install cygwin tools anyway. And the GUI tools could be written in python.
The simple answer is: nothing is really gained by this. Why is english the language of the world? Because it is rather simple. Chinese won't replace english for the same reason. I would never ever consider writing a program with non-ascii characters, besides perhaps accented characters in strings. The reason is also very simple: have you ever tried to port a program to a different platform? I did it many times. Only the ASCII part survived. Sure, you may create a better standard than ASCII, but if you use it for programming, it will not improve your life. Abstraction is the core of every program. Nothing is gained by replacing != with something more readable if you have to define odd looking names all the time. In fact, it only makes it harder to read if you happen to run in technical difficulties with the new character set.
Nice article. I recall that you can drive these waves about 4 times faster than sound waves. Since kinetic energy goes like velocity to the square, this means up to 16 times more power (in theory). So this means in theory you can save 1/16 of the fuell (assuming the same kind of fuel for normal and magnetic propulsion), and possibly even more because you need less energy to drive the lighter rocket. Saving only 90% seems to be a conservative estimate. BTW, please do also provide links to the original article if you use babelfish. Most people prefer to read the original if they can.
I do not understand why such 'scientists' or 'doctors' even try this. Isn't earth already overpopulated? We need to find ways to reduce population not increase it.
r th.html
Read what Isaac Asimov had to say about his:
http://www.emi.u-bordeaux.fr/public/asimov/saveea
Or in short:
Overpopulation -> polution -> climate change -> New Orleans
Quote: "By 2000 A.D., the carbon dioxide content of the air may have increased by one third beyond today's content. This won't interfere with our breathing noticeably, but it will conserve more of the heat Earth receives from the sun so that Earth's average temperature will go up somewhat. This will change the weather pattern, probably for the worse, and increase the rate at which the polar ice-caps melt, raising the sea-level noticeably and causing coastal areas to suffer more from high tides and storms - in short, the greenhouse effect."
Hi, at least with Windows XP it did not!
And it has a valid license. Automatic updates
worked until that 'genuine advantage' thing, when
I had to run it manually (to install the new update wizard). Only after that the genuine advantage installed and only after that
security updates have been installed.
It strikes me odd, that this important security patch arrived *after* the genuine advantage update. After the genuine advantage update all our windows computers stopped making automatic updates and therefore the genuine advantage was not patched as quickly as possible. Manual interaction was required to accept the 'genuine advantage' update. I wonder how many users out there stopped watching their automatic update function to work correctly. What is the advantage of having automatic updates if you have to monitor them? What is advantage is meant in 'genuine advantage'? And why do they now publish this information, when many people out there will not have applied the patch simply because they believe they still have automatic updates running?
The authors say it would be very difficult to detect the presence of the marks if they are encrypted. The authors also assume that it is the serial number of the printers. What if this is not the case? The most simply way to avoid anybody find out about the marks is to write a secret serial number unencrypted to the paper. Nobody would be able to find out, because the mapping of secret serial number to public serial number would be kept secret. Add to this some randomness by printing additional but meaningless data as well, and it will make it necessary to print a very large number of pages until you find the pattern repeating. And of course, change the method details every couple of years.
So lets find a solution which is ok with falling debris. How about adding some lightweight cover on the sensitive shuttle parts? Something which quickly falls off when the shuttle reaches high velocity (air pressure) or evaporates when it reenters the atmosphere?
This Z80 based beast was fantastic simple. I disassembled the BIOS, the DOS (NEWDOS it was called), the BIOS Basic interpreter including the math routines, the floppy disk format routines. The DOS was running from a floppy, your program/data was on another. I made custom system floppys which run much faster (optimized disk storage of OS modules). I improved the keyboard driver to respond better, and it was all just for fun at an age of 14. Finally, I moved to MS-DOS 2.11 and wrote some fancy parallel port transfer program because I had no means to transfer data between the incompatible systems.
But these days, I'm much more happy with Linux. I understand it almost as good. Never liked the
windows world.
There is an alternate theory for gravity called 'MOND', but it has not been shown yet if it works for structure formation. It is based on the assumption, that beyond some length scale, gravity becomes weaker - possibly because of gravity leaking out to higher dimensions. This can be done with M-branes in string theory. Hey, but string theory is also not proofen and is basically a theoretical toy theory so far. Basically, MOND just replaces one problem with another - instead of having to explain dark matter (there many candidates for what it might be including ongoing experiments on earth to find in a lab), you replace well known general relativity with something yet to be worked out in detail and not proofen. Of course, all these possibilities have to be checked out, if we want to get a better understanding of nature.
BTW, redshift is not a byproduct of big bang, even in an infinite steady-state universe, there would be the same red shift. The difference is, that in a closed universe with big bang you can only look back in time until you see the big bang itself (before that the universe was not transparent for light waves). And this is observed in the so-called microwave background. So we actually can SEE the big bang going off, by just looking at high redshift. And fluctuations in this light coming from all directions tell us that it was very smooth and constant all over the place. Only small fluctuations exists and those are to little to let galaxies pull together the mass they have today if you do not invoke some additional force (gravity of dark matter!). The standard theory explains all these details at high redshift and the subsequent formation of large scale structure very well. The problem on galactic scales are details which have to do with feedback from the evolving galaxies. This is not understood in detail, yet.
There is no clear evidence. But there is plenty
of evidence for a big bang and the large scale
structure formation visible in the galaxy distribution with redshift. The large scale structure is very well explained by this kind of model. The big questions now are, can we find
dark matter nearby and can we explain how galaxies
form within such dark matter halos.
The problem with this kind of science is, that people are so happy with the 'media' that they forget the 'message'. Cold dark matter forming dark halos in an expanding universe have been very successful in explaining the large scale structure, but fail miserably at the not so small scale of individual galaxies. These models are just tests of the theory, not a replacement of reality. It doesn't make sense to have a perfect simulation of the universe - why duplicate it? It only makes sense to try to understand and improve the theory. Tell me what is new about taking more particles to simulate the same physics? It will still not hold on small scales. Of course simulating magnetic fields, radiation, details of the interstellar medium and the actual star formation process is difficult. But instead of using shear computer power to do the simple model more accurate doesn't quite cut it.
Let's proof that /.-ers are better people.
Create a slashwiki and see if it lasts longer.
This is the first resonable plan I hear about moon or mars exploration. Why send humans? It makes much more sense to develope space exploration robots with artificial intelligence. Once there is enough power production and a working environment for people, we can still send scientists and others to do what only humans can do. At the moment, sending a human to moon or mars would only be a survival experiment.
-
it could burn DVDs (available as option)
-
record TV
-
copy DVD to HD
Of course, it should then also not cost much more than a typical HD/DVD recorder I can buy at the discounter and can do all the above, i.e. 400 euros.So the matter is repelled at the horizon when matter falls apart, thus the black hole cannot swallow the mass of the collapsing star? How does he get a horizon then firsthand? Without a collapse he cannot have this effect. When there is a horizon and he is right with his claims, this would only mean once formed a black hole would not grow. However, the existence of Sgr A* already proofs this is wrong, because there are no stars with 4 10^6 solar masses to form it in a collapse. It needs to be grown out of accreted material (which he claims is impossible). He also doesn't explain how the negative energy can collapse (and where it comes from). So he replaces one problem with another one.
So NASA decides a robot mission to rescue HST is not feasable, but the same time they develope this kind of mission for other purposes? Makes we wonder if NASA is just helping the Pentagon to build new SDI technology. Clearly, HST is not something the Bush administration is interested in. Instead he wants telescopes like SPITZER which are infrared cameras - ideal for observing the earth. I wonder how many infrared telescopes build for the secret service are already monitoring us...
As a system admin for about 50 computer systems running different types of unix, I cannot see why /etc is considered a mess. It is only a few megabytes at most and provides easy filebased access to all important configuration files. Using your package manager of choice, you can easily find out which files in /etc belong to which program.
/etc to be /etc files + cfengine site managment functionallity.
If anything, I would suggest files in
cfengine friendly. A registry is nothing else but human readable