Antarctica, the moon, an underwater city, and maybe some Pacific islands. I believe all the islands have been claimed, even if nobody has been known to ever set foot on it (by countries claiming all islands in a given region). Any option likely comes with a requirement to defend your sovereignty.
I think the only practical option is to sneak yourself into sovereignty. Have some asset on your island that all surrounding nations rely on (such as all regional communications traffic being routed through you), then suddenly declare yourself independent. The other countries can't risk an outage, so they begrudgingly leave you alone.
No, just imaging in general, viewing or editing. Back in the day, Macs were a lot easier to do color correction than Windows boxen were, though I'm not sure how true that is anymore. That's one reason why anybody serious about Photoshop does it on a Mac.
This demonstrates that it's almost impossible to secure a machine when an attacker has unrestricted physical access. Any OS is vulnerable somehow. There are a few things that can be done (like encrypting the entire system partition), but mostly solutions are limited to restricting who has physical access.
Michelson-Morley was an important part of it, but it was Einstein that finally killed it off by proving that waves and particles aren't as seperate as they appear to be, and thus ether is unnecessary. A few stodgy professors hung on for a while, but they eventually retired/died off without convincing very many of their students.
Not disproven, really, but fell away due to Occam's Razor. The difference between ether and this "web-like structure" is that ether was never directly observed.
Greenpeace was comparing the information companies themselves were providing voluntarily on their website. I see no reason to trust Michael Dell's word more than Steve Jobs.
What matters here is that Greenpeace themselves considered it to be a valid comparison, when this is clearly bunk. All the companies that were compared have the same reasons to lie, yet getting information of out Apple was hailed as a victory.
After that letter was published, Greenpeace claimed it was a "great victory" for successfully changing the environmental policies of a major company. All Apple really did was say they'd be more forthcoming about what their environmental plans were; no actual change in those plans was announced.
If you want to say that doesn't qualify them as "nutjobs", perhaps you'd be right. However, it certainly qualifies them as a political organization concerning itself with propaganda victories rather than real solutions.
How about attacking Apple for bad environmental policies, when in fact Apple had already done what other computer companies were planning to do. The only fault on Apple's side was that they generally prefer to talk about things they've already done, rather than things they only plan on doing.
At this point, Greenpeace is more anti-capitalist than pro-environmentalist.
I wonder if we're not looking at this with cultural filters, though. It could well be that the Chinese have a mindset that makes government control work where it has failed in the West.
I predict this will be bought up by a few gamers with disposable income, and then never heard of again. Alternatively, assuming the creator doesn't have any ethical problems with the idea, he'll add three zeros to the end of the price and sell it to the military for training simulators.
Right now, the US DoD considers energy independence to be a national security issue. The best way to win a war is not to fight at all, and they'd rather not fight any more wars over oil. Which is why the NSSO is interested in space-based solar power.
The economic benefits of unmanned exploration are not up for debate. The use of satellites for telecommunications and weather prediction are too great to simply pass off. And that's just what we can put up there economically with a relatively lightweight payload up to geosynchronous orbit (at best). Reduction in launch costs and getting all the way to the Lagrange points opens up the massive metal reserves in asteroids, among other things.
Manned exploration is more debatable. I'd argue that as necessary as part of the self-actualization of the species (in the Maslov Hierarchy sense), not as direct economic benefits. Unmanned exploration, though, is a settled issue.
What, exactly, is the oppertunity cost of the interstate hiway system? According to http://www.dot.state.mn.us/interstate50/50facts.html, it cost $114 billion over 35 years (Wikipedia lists that as $425 billion in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). The trucking industry (born directly as a result of that hiway system) pulled $645.6 billion in revenue in 2006 alone. That doesn't even account for other uses of the system, like increased tourisim.
I'd say the interstate hiway system was a great investment on the government's part. Libertarians are free to throw a hissy fit if they want.
More likely, NASA will always be around to provide infrastructure and pure exploration. Unmanned private missions, for instance, would almost certainly be focused on searching for specific economically viable resources rather than pure science. NASA will still be useful for missions like the mars rovers.
Likewise, it's unlikely that a private body would be willing or able to invest in an advanced launch system, such as a space elevator or launch loop. OTOH, like the interstate hiway system, that's exactly the sort of infrastructure that the government could invest in to promote private ventures.
Slashdot Mirror
Antarctica, the moon, an underwater city, and maybe some Pacific islands. I believe all the islands have been claimed, even if nobody has been known to ever set foot on it (by countries claiming all islands in a given region). Any option likely comes with a requirement to defend your sovereignty.
I think the only practical option is to sneak yourself into sovereignty. Have some asset on your island that all surrounding nations rely on (such as all regional communications traffic being routed through you), then suddenly declare yourself independent. The other countries can't risk an outage, so they begrudgingly leave you alone.
Just so we're clear: is the above talking about Bush or Blair? It could apply to both.
No, just imaging in general, viewing or editing. Back in the day, Macs were a lot easier to do color correction than Windows boxen were, though I'm not sure how true that is anymore. That's one reason why anybody serious about Photoshop does it on a Mac.
This demonstrates that it's almost impossible to secure a machine when an attacker has unrestricted physical access. Any OS is vulnerable somehow. There are a few things that can be done (like encrypting the entire system partition), but mostly solutions are limited to restricting who has physical access.
Of course they were. Macs dominate in almost any imaging-related field.
Prisons are full of determined but dumb attackers.
Of course you can't stop a smart, determined attacker. However, the majority of attackers are determined but dumb.
However, I agree that this method will have too high a false positive rate to be useful for general screening.
If you can't defend your beliefs without propping up strawmen like Jack Thompson, it's time to reevaluate your beliefs.
Michelson-Morley was an important part of it, but it was Einstein that finally killed it off by proving that waves and particles aren't as seperate as they appear to be, and thus ether is unnecessary. A few stodgy professors hung on for a while, but they eventually retired/died off without convincing very many of their students.
The universe likely has neutral charge. Also see a more detailed discussion on the subject.
Not disproven, really, but fell away due to Occam's Razor. The difference between ether and this "web-like structure" is that ether was never directly observed.
Greenpeace was comparing the information companies themselves were providing voluntarily on their website. I see no reason to trust Michael Dell's word more than Steve Jobs.
What matters here is that Greenpeace themselves considered it to be a valid comparison, when this is clearly bunk. All the companies that were compared have the same reasons to lie, yet getting information of out Apple was hailed as a victory.
After that letter was published, Greenpeace claimed it was a "great victory" for successfully changing the environmental policies of a major company. All Apple really did was say they'd be more forthcoming about what their environmental plans were; no actual change in those plans was announced.
If you want to say that doesn't qualify them as "nutjobs", perhaps you'd be right. However, it certainly qualifies them as a political organization concerning itself with propaganda victories rather than real solutions.
How about attacking Apple for bad environmental policies, when in fact Apple had already done what other computer companies were planning to do. The only fault on Apple's side was that they generally prefer to talk about things they've already done, rather than things they only plan on doing.
At this point, Greenpeace is more anti-capitalist than pro-environmentalist.
The average success rates for most businesses is also about 1 in 10.
In astrophysics, you generally speak as if something doesn't happen until the light cone hits you. It's a lot more convenient that way.
I wonder if we're not looking at this with cultural filters, though. It could well be that the Chinese have a mindset that makes government control work where it has failed in the West.
I predict this will be bought up by a few gamers with disposable income, and then never heard of again. Alternatively, assuming the creator doesn't have any ethical problems with the idea, he'll add three zeros to the end of the price and sell it to the military for training simulators.
You look more like Bruce Perens to me. What's your real slashdot ID?
Right now, the US DoD considers energy independence to be a national security issue. The best way to win a war is not to fight at all, and they'd rather not fight any more wars over oil. Which is why the NSSO is interested in space-based solar power.
The economic benefits of unmanned exploration are not up for debate. The use of satellites for telecommunications and weather prediction are too great to simply pass off. And that's just what we can put up there economically with a relatively lightweight payload up to geosynchronous orbit (at best). Reduction in launch costs and getting all the way to the Lagrange points opens up the massive metal reserves in asteroids, among other things.
Manned exploration is more debatable. I'd argue that as necessary as part of the self-actualization of the species (in the Maslov Hierarchy sense), not as direct economic benefits. Unmanned exploration, though, is a settled issue.
The wooshing sound is a load of sarcasm going right over you.
What, exactly, is the oppertunity cost of the interstate hiway system? According to http://www.dot.state.mn.us/interstate50/50facts.html, it cost $114 billion over 35 years (Wikipedia lists that as $425 billion in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). The trucking industry (born directly as a result of that hiway system) pulled $645.6 billion in revenue in 2006 alone. That doesn't even account for other uses of the system, like increased tourisim.
I'd say the interstate hiway system was a great investment on the government's part. Libertarians are free to throw a hissy fit if they want.
Next time we see a hurricane forming weeks before it hits land, remember how "limited use" the space program is.
More likely, NASA will always be around to provide infrastructure and pure exploration. Unmanned private missions, for instance, would almost certainly be focused on searching for specific economically viable resources rather than pure science. NASA will still be useful for missions like the mars rovers.
Likewise, it's unlikely that a private body would be willing or able to invest in an advanced launch system, such as a space elevator or launch loop. OTOH, like the interstate hiway system, that's exactly the sort of infrastructure that the government could invest in to promote private ventures.
People have written that article, and it's generally responded to by a lot of jumping up and down.
At this point, I'm content to leave PHP as a way to vacuum the dreck out of the Perl community.