Yes, but this "trusted environment" is designed to allow your system to run root-level, encrypted software, that nobody but MS can even look at in unencrypted form! Forget reverse-engineering binaries for interoperability, first you're going to have to crack the encryption that's hard-wired into your computer.
In short, this gives MS the right to run any binary they want on your system as root, invisible and unknowable to you or anyone else.
I hate to be the one to bring this up, but that picture looks more like ass cheeks than a pair of breasts... Is this a "bum" pun in theme with the posting of this story? I'm not sure I would like to be seen drawing icons of asses around my neighborhood.
I think with fraud, one must prove intent. Some spammers can claim ignorance, and then the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove otherwise, or else the case gets thrown out. If you make merely the act of spamming illegal, regardless of intent, suddenly that is a non-issue, and prosecuting spammers has become that much easier.
"Now I don't know if you're ignorant, an idiot, or just slanderous."
Neither. I just have an opinion that is different from yours. Two people can look at the same facts, and come to completely different conclusions. I respect your opinions, try to respect mine.
Recently my home garrison lost 4 soldiers because a US pilot was to eager with his fire button. So seeing reports of thousands of friendly fire deaths from Afghanistan doesn't surprise me in the least.
I'm sure that sometimes they take great care in bombing, because if the collateral damage is too high, then that changes media opinion. But a few villagers in a remote area, they just couldn't give a damn about. If they treated friendly Afghans with they same care they treated US soldiers on the ground, I believe far less bombs would be dropped.
And to match your anecdotal report of not bombing until the target left a populated area, I can recall several instances in the news of village and town areas being bombed because of suspected Al Qaeda fighters being there. I believe Al Qaeda members should be hunted down like the dogs they are. Afghanistan is not against the US, they have terrorists in their borders that they need help eliminating. People in the USA can't seem to shake the "us vs them" mentality, and that is reflected in the body count of civillians. If it were terrorists in the US, not a single bomb would ever fall within town limits, PERIOD. So why are so many bombs falling into friendly towns in Afghanistan? Why are allied Canadian soldiers being killed by trigger happy pilots?
Remember, I am neither ignorant, an idiot, or slanderous. I have genuine concerns and issues that I'm raising as politely as possible. Insulting me would only reinforce my opinion.
Ok, if the FBI found out there were some terrorists hidden in a small town in Iowa, and they couldn't root them out or find them, but they were certain they were there... Would they send in an air strike to bomb the town???
Why should our Afghani FRIENDS and ALLIES suffer that fate, because some bad apples are hiding in their midst, and quite possibly holding the town hostage?
This is the double standard that upsets people. Americans ARE too trigger happy when it comes to non-Americans. They don't care much if it's friends or enemies, as long as they're non-American.
I think the poster you replied to was trying to mean that Americans are far too trigger happy, as our good boys at the PPCLI found out. If the Americans were less trigger happy from the air, and sent in more ground troops instead, would there be less innocent deaths? I think this is the root question we have to ask, and people have come up with widely differing answers to it. It appears many on Slashdot see unmanned vehicles as adding to the American habit of shooting from a distance and (sometimes) asking questions later.
There is a hard limit... Since theoretically almost every atom does decay eventually, an electronic object can sit in space until enough of it's constituent atoms decay away to break the electrical connections. Then it's broken. This limit is generally much longer than the age of the universe so far.
Then there is chemical/mechanical stability. Some compounds do degrade over time, such as plastics. Plastic parts become brittle, crumble, or otherwise age. Batteries and RTG's degrade or wear out. The same goes for moving parts. The time for this to happen is much less than atomic stability of the actual device. If cheap parts are used, even ten years is easily possible, sometimes much less. Chemical degredation is heavily dependant on the temperature of the object in question. It would also more affect the support systems of the electronics worse than the electronics itself. Batteries, fuel cells, electrical shielding for moving parts such as gyros, for example.
Since empty space is not really empty, we also have degradation due to interaction with the spacecraft's environment. Micrometeorites abrade the suface of the craft, but larger ones behave like bullets, and these can definately cause harm to electronics inside. Then there is the radiative environment. Cosmic rays, or other exotic forms of radiation can be really nasty to electronics. At the least, they can cause random noise in running electronics, and say, flip 1's into 0's or vice versa every now and then. The much harder rays can permanently damage or fuse microcircuits. As any overclocker knows, simple heat kills electronics very nicely, so objects closer to the sun may have much shorter lifespans. Radio wave radiation from solar storms, if intense enough, can have the same effect on electronics as a highly statically charged cat rubbing against my motherboard when I took off the case.. (you don't wanna know.) There's a fair amount of redundancy in space based electronics for this reason, but there is a limit to how much abuse these systems can bear. Engineers can't insure against every eventuality, such as ET cats.
In my opinion, the practical limit of a spacecraft is balanced between chemical/mechanical degradation, and environmental hazards. I feel that right now, mechanical degradation is much worse than environmental effects, but as durable solid state devices become more prevalent, this will tip the scale in the other direction. I'd be interested to see statistical information on the reason satellites fail.
Bork!
Re:What I did/do
on
Disconnecting
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"My business requires that I open and close many ISP accounts and that's always worked."
And how many sent e-mails per day to verified addresses do you guarantee?;-)
There is a law which bans the glorification of Nazi's. At least, I think. Also, in German culture, they're pretty much scared to mention anything regarding the Nazi past... It's still a touchy subject for Germany, and their answer is to not deal with it directly.
I suppose that's where we differ. I consider the factory workers who make guns just as much willing participants as soldiers who point the guns. Same goes for any taxpayers. Same goes for the factory worker's wife, who packs his lunch. This was the mentality of the second world war, and I don't believe it's wrong. People these days forget that all out war is ugly, and one must do whatever it takes to win.
As far as the religious issue goes... I mention it as not the root cause because without the religious aspect, I believe this war will still go on. But with out the social, political, territorial and economic part of it, this war would fizzle.
The only part of this where I would agree with you that Religion caused this mess, is regarding Zionism. The religious belief that you can steal land people have been using for centuries because of some misdeed 2000 years ago is not helpful to a situation.
"you don't see conservative Christians and Jews lining up to strap C4 to their bodies and suicide bomb their "enemies.""
Just a little thing I would like to point out. The violence going on between Isreal and Palestine has very little to do with religion. It's going on because Palestinians have foreign soldiers on their streets imposing martial law, bulldozing houses, to make way for their own people. It's called ethnic cleansing. It's happened many times in history, and it's quite moral to oppose this in the most violent way possible. Were Allied pilots terrorists because they deliberately targeted German civillians?
I hate to say it, but in an all out war, civillians are valid targets, because they feed and control their armies. Look at it from the perspective of a war. Palestinians just want their own land. Israel wants to kick them out and build houses for their own people. Suddenly this sounds very similar to almost every other war in history, because it's primarily about economics and property, and religion is a wonderful excuse and scapegoat.
Remember, it's every Israeli's dream to have a nice apartment in the West Bank or Gaza, without any Palestinian in sight.
There is one flaw with the massive stone grid design. Something like that would quickly fill up with windblown sand, sedimentation, tumbleweed, etc.. In just a few hundred years, the spaces between those cubes could easily turn it into a rough hewn stone field. Stones that large would make beautiful solid foundations for buildings. Then someone would dig a well.... POOF!
Personally I think they should bury it REAL deep, in a crustal subduction zone. That way, the waste would be dragged down into the earth's core, and rendered harmless. The only problem being that areas like that are earthquake zones, so they would have to be very sure about the geology of the area.
Anyone who knows more than one language knows that it's *impossible* to make perfect translations every time, as meanings and figures of speech differ and change with time. Also, often there are words and concepts in one language that don't exist at all in others. Poetry is probably the worst to translate. And by all accounts, the Bible seemed at first to be a pretty poetic seeming work.
As for examples, sure. Here's one. Consider the bible's 2 versions of David's ill fated census story. The II Samuel version begins "The anger of the lord burned against Israel, and he incited Daved" while the I Chronicles version begins "Satan rose up against Israel, and incited David."
So which is it? Entire books have been published listing the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the bible. Try "Ken's Guide to the Bible" by Ken Smith. It asks all the hard questions that Christians would rather sweep under the rug than think about.
Make a small area at the centre, perhaps a cave or shrine, deadly with radioactivity. For the small price of the deaths of a few wanderers, people will know very well through the millennia that this place is deadly.
Slashdot Mirror
"I mean a hyundai will get you from point A from point B..."
I modded my Hyundai accent. It got me laid.
Bork!
A "NO JUNK MAIL" sticker on my mailbox works great for me.
Bork!
"I say tommorrow (no self-respecting /.er could be a spammer, right?)."
How many geeks on Slashdot have self-respect?
.
Yes, but this "trusted environment" is designed to allow your system to run root-level, encrypted software, that nobody but MS can even look at in unencrypted form! Forget reverse-engineering binaries for interoperability, first you're going to have to crack the encryption that's hard-wired into your computer.
In short, this gives MS the right to run any binary they want on your system as root, invisible and unknowable to you or anyone else.
But of course, you should trust Microsoft.
I hate to be the one to bring this up, but that picture looks more like ass cheeks than a pair of breasts... Is this a "bum" pun in theme with the posting of this story? I'm not sure I would like to be seen drawing icons of asses around my neighborhood.
Bork!
It's rock solid.
I quite like that song... A hacker song done to old country/folk music, very well done. I recommend everyone who comes across give it a good listen.
Bork!
"Are you trying to say that an individual couldn't own locks and a lockpick set at the same time?"
Yes.
I think with fraud, one must prove intent. Some spammers can claim ignorance, and then the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove otherwise, or else the case gets thrown out. If you make merely the act of spamming illegal, regardless of intent, suddenly that is a non-issue, and prosecuting spammers has become that much easier.
Bork!
"I think companies here in North America still have a lot to learn about cooperation as a method of business."
I think they know how to co-operate all too well. Just look at the RIAA or the MPAA. Price fixing, ripping off artists... etc.
"Now I don't know if you're ignorant, an idiot, or just slanderous."
Neither. I just have an opinion that is different from yours. Two people can look at the same facts, and come to completely different conclusions. I respect your opinions, try to respect mine.
Recently my home garrison lost 4 soldiers because a US pilot was to eager with his fire button. So seeing reports of thousands of friendly fire deaths from Afghanistan doesn't surprise me in the least.
I'm sure that sometimes they take great care in bombing, because if the collateral damage is too high, then that changes media opinion. But a few villagers in a remote area, they just couldn't give a damn about. If they treated friendly Afghans with they same care they treated US soldiers on the ground, I believe far less bombs would be dropped.
And to match your anecdotal report of not bombing until the target left a populated area, I can recall several instances in the news of village and town areas being bombed because of suspected Al Qaeda fighters being there. I believe Al Qaeda members should be hunted down like the dogs they are. Afghanistan is not against the US, they have terrorists in their borders that they need help eliminating. People in the USA can't seem to shake the "us vs them" mentality, and that is reflected in the body count of civillians. If it were terrorists in the US, not a single bomb would ever fall within town limits, PERIOD. So why are so many bombs falling into friendly towns in Afghanistan? Why are allied Canadian soldiers being killed by trigger happy pilots?
Remember, I am neither ignorant, an idiot, or slanderous. I have genuine concerns and issues that I'm raising as politely as possible. Insulting me would only reinforce my opinion.
Ok, if the FBI found out there were some terrorists hidden in a small town in Iowa, and they couldn't root them out or find them, but they were certain they were there... Would they send in an air strike to bomb the town???
Why should our Afghani FRIENDS and ALLIES suffer that fate, because some bad apples are hiding in their midst, and quite possibly holding the town hostage?
This is the double standard that upsets people. Americans ARE too trigger happy when it comes to non-Americans. They don't care much if it's friends or enemies, as long as they're non-American.
Bork!
I think the poster you replied to was trying to mean that Americans are far too trigger happy, as our good boys at the PPCLI found out. If the Americans were less trigger happy from the air, and sent in more ground troops instead, would there be less innocent deaths? I think this is the root question we have to ask, and people have come up with widely differing answers to it. It appears many on Slashdot see unmanned vehicles as adding to the American habit of shooting from a distance and (sometimes) asking questions later.
It's a serious issue.
Bork!
The Russians have done this since air warfare started.
There is a hard limit... Since theoretically almost every atom does decay eventually, an electronic object can sit in space until enough of it's constituent atoms decay away to break the electrical connections. Then it's broken. This limit is generally much longer than the age of the universe so far.
Then there is chemical/mechanical stability. Some compounds do degrade over time, such as plastics. Plastic parts become brittle, crumble, or otherwise age. Batteries and RTG's degrade or wear out. The same goes for moving parts. The time for this to happen is much less than atomic stability of the actual device. If cheap parts are used, even ten years is easily possible, sometimes much less. Chemical degredation is heavily dependant on the temperature of the object in question. It would also more affect the support systems of the electronics worse than the electronics itself. Batteries, fuel cells, electrical shielding for moving parts such as gyros, for example.
Since empty space is not really empty, we also have degradation due to interaction with the spacecraft's environment. Micrometeorites abrade the suface of the craft, but larger ones behave like bullets, and these can definately cause harm to electronics inside. Then there is the radiative environment. Cosmic rays, or other exotic forms of radiation can be really nasty to electronics. At the least, they can cause random noise in running electronics, and say, flip 1's into 0's or vice versa every now and then. The much harder rays can permanently damage or fuse microcircuits. As any overclocker knows, simple heat kills electronics very nicely, so objects closer to the sun may have much shorter lifespans. Radio wave radiation from solar storms, if intense enough, can have the same effect on electronics as a highly statically charged cat rubbing against my motherboard when I took off the case.. (you don't wanna know.) There's a fair amount of redundancy in space based electronics for this reason, but there is a limit to how much abuse these systems can bear. Engineers can't insure against every eventuality, such as ET cats.
In my opinion, the practical limit of a spacecraft is balanced between chemical/mechanical degradation, and environmental hazards. I feel that right now, mechanical degradation is much worse than environmental effects, but as durable solid state devices become more prevalent, this will tip the scale in the other direction. I'd be interested to see statistical information on the reason satellites fail.
Bork!
"My business requires that I open and close many ISP accounts and that's always worked."
;-)
And how many sent e-mails per day to verified addresses do you guarantee?
Bork!
There is a law which bans the glorification of Nazi's. At least, I think. Also, in German culture, they're pretty much scared to mention anything regarding the Nazi past... It's still a touchy subject for Germany, and their answer is to not deal with it directly.
"India isn't blessed with AC all over the place and yet the hot streets aren't littered with burnt corpses."
t h_asia/ newsid_1991000/1991215.stm
How about some right here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/sou
That was in today's news. 450 dead in Indian heat wave.
I suppose that's where we differ. I consider the factory workers who make guns just as much willing participants as soldiers who point the guns. Same goes for any taxpayers. Same goes for the factory worker's wife, who packs his lunch. This was the mentality of the second world war, and I don't believe it's wrong. People these days forget that all out war is ugly, and one must do whatever it takes to win.
As far as the religious issue goes... I mention it as not the root cause because without the religious aspect, I believe this war will still go on. But with out the social, political, territorial and economic part of it, this war would fizzle.
The only part of this where I would agree with you that Religion caused this mess, is regarding Zionism. The religious belief that you can steal land people have been using for centuries because of some misdeed 2000 years ago is not helpful to a situation.
Bork!
If an acutal patent exists for this... YES. Otherwise there would be summary judgement against them.
"you don't see conservative Christians and Jews lining up to strap C4 to their bodies and suicide bomb their "enemies.""
Just a little thing I would like to point out. The violence going on between Isreal and Palestine has very little to do with religion. It's going on because Palestinians have foreign soldiers on their streets imposing martial law, bulldozing houses, to make way for their own people. It's called ethnic cleansing. It's happened many times in history, and it's quite moral to oppose this in the most violent way possible. Were Allied pilots terrorists because they deliberately targeted German civillians?
I hate to say it, but in an all out war, civillians are valid targets, because they feed and control their armies. Look at it from the perspective of a war. Palestinians just want their own land. Israel wants to kick them out and build houses for their own people. Suddenly this sounds very similar to almost every other war in history, because it's primarily about economics and property, and religion is a wonderful excuse and scapegoat.
Remember, it's every Israeli's dream to have a nice apartment in the West Bank or Gaza, without any Palestinian in sight.
There is one flaw with the massive stone grid design. Something like that would quickly fill up with windblown sand, sedimentation, tumbleweed, etc.. In just a few hundred years, the spaces between those cubes could easily turn it into a rough hewn stone field. Stones that large would make beautiful solid foundations for buildings. Then someone would dig a well.... POOF!
Personally I think they should bury it REAL deep, in a crustal subduction zone. That way, the waste would be dragged down into the earth's core, and rendered harmless. The only problem being that areas like that are earthquake zones, so they would have to be very sure about the geology of the area.
Anyone who knows more than one language knows that it's *impossible* to make perfect translations every time, as meanings and figures of speech differ and change with time. Also, often there are words and concepts in one language that don't exist at all in others. Poetry is probably the worst to translate. And by all accounts, the Bible seemed at first to be a pretty poetic seeming work.
As for examples, sure. Here's one. Consider the bible's 2 versions of David's ill fated census story. The II Samuel version begins "The anger of the lord burned against Israel, and he incited Daved" while the I Chronicles version begins "Satan rose up against Israel, and incited David."
So which is it? Entire books have been published listing the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the bible. Try "Ken's Guide to the Bible" by Ken Smith. It asks all the hard questions that Christians would rather sweep under the rug than think about.
You asked.
And the radiation would turn them all into those money-mutants from The Mummy Returns!
Make a small area at the centre, perhaps a cave or shrine, deadly with radioactivity. For the small price of the deaths of a few wanderers, people will know very well through the millennia that this place is deadly.