Why put capital letters at the front of them? Maybe it is because we are talking about a specific instance of the name by which you are addressed? This is the same reason The Internet should be capitalized.
Point out the specific entity which is "The Internet" to me, and I might agree.
The internet is a continuously evolving complex system. Routes change, nodes come on and off line, it never sits still. Referring to it as a proper entity makes about as much sense as referring to the people in Times Square as "The Crowd."
Right, because we all know that when water reaches an imaginary line in the ocean it turns around so there is no mixing of the perfectly well-separated "Atlantic" and "Pacific" oceans.
I further propose we create a "Nigerian Internet" to isolate ourselves from scammers.
Last time I checked, I did not need a license from the IETF to put a computer on the internet, I did not need to get permission to develop a new internet protocol, and I didn't feel the need to beg forgiveness from the IETF gods when I broke "the rules" and ran a web server on port 25.
I was spelling it "internet" back in 1997. There is no controlling entity, no plan for future development, no widespread coordination, or anything else that would make it deserving of a proper name.
It's like the ocean. The ocean is big, powerful, and impressive, and we owe our existence to it, but even still, we don't call it the Ocean, merely the ocean.
If you're getting your info from the manufacturer, and you do so all at the same time (i.e. during time of compromise) you can't know you got good data. Even if you have a reliable public key, you must have obtained it at some time in the past for anything on that server to be trustworthy; otherwise, nothing stops the attacker from creating a list, signing it with their own private key and publishing a corresponding public key.
This assumes the proportion of people alive who create "stuff" remains the same over time. There are more people now, but are there more artists now? Everything that has ever been written or drawn by anyone does not necessarily represent a "work" I am interested in.
I think most of the works we're talking about here are artistic in nature, and I don't see that the rate of production of art has changed greatly as the population has exploded...
when i worked in a copy shop, we were told anything created (in our examples: photos) were automatically protected as property of the creator for such and such a time frame.... what then, would be able to be sent, besides GPL stuff?
Stuff from outside that time frame, obviously. Unless the time frame is 5000 years or so, I'd say the majority of "stuff" people have created is not under copyright.
We live in a world where it's acceptable to invest a million dollars into extremely detailed computer simulations of the aerodynamics of a particular kind of sprinting shoe in order to shave a hundredth of a second off somebody's time on the 400 meters. Where it's allowable to put an athlete on a treadmill and take 1000 frames per second of video for in-depth analysis of stride, balance, and efficiency.
In other words, it's okay for rich countries like the US to use technology to optimize the performance of their athletes, to the detriment of those in poorer countries who do not have such advantages.
And yet, it is considered sacriligious to "violate" the spirit of competition by taking a few performance-enhancing drugs here and there?
This is the kind of "offhanded" slight to SUV's that does not suprise me. (Take a Guess @ what I drive.)
It must be an SUV, because only an SUV owner could in any way construe that comment as a slight against SUVs.
It is a Fact that a collision between an SUV and a solar powered car that barely weighs more than its driver will result in death. How can you dispute this?
It makes absolutely no statement one way or another on the ethics of choosing to drive an SUV!
I always take issue with that phrase. Why is transformation necessarily a "threat?"
Wake up. As our technology advances, life is going to change, sometimes in increments that are uncomfortable to bear. Debates of morality and ethics will constantly shift and evolve. And guess what -- none of this is a "threat."
No, is means "this word is thus." Meaning, as original. It doesn't necessarily refer to a mistake. It is used in contexts where the reader might infer that it is a mistake.
The word "sic" means "thus." Nothing more, nothing less.
This is just an example of muddy thinking that doesn't belong on Slashdot.
No, the thinking is crystal clear. When a massive vehicle collides with a puny, composite solar car, death is a certain result.
Therefore, these massive vehicles will, in fact, deter the acceptance of solar technology. Solar cars by nature must be extremely lightweight, and nobody in their right mind would drive one on the same road as trucks and SUVs.
Let's stow the "Hummers are wasteful" arguments and just recognize that a brave person lost their life in an experimental vehicle. Let's save these arguments for a topic where it actually matters.
I do believe some relevance emerges from the fact that if all cars on the road were of the solar variety, collisions between them would be far less disastrous.
Hummers and other gratuitously massive vehicles are a real impediment to the acceptance of solar power vehicles, and this accident is a tragic demonstration of why.
1. The ISP usually will not care even if you report it.
2. Chances are low that is actually the attacker's machine -- more likely they have compromised it and are using it as a stepping stone.
3. If you try to retaliate, the kiddie may get pissed and DoS you.
4. The feds don't give a fuck.
Cracker kiddies are like hornets. They swarm, but unless you piss them off, they won't attack. And they're too stupid to get in the door. Ignore them.
So it's not allowed for the rotors to have any mass, as this would store up kinetic energy?
Haha, aren't you smart.
Read the fucking rules:
"4.1.4 No devices for storing energy either for takeoff or for use in flight shall be permitted. Rotating aerodynamic components, such as rotor blades, used for lift and/or control are exempt from consideration as energy storing devices."
Wow, it seems you're not smarter than a committee of experienced engineers, after all, eh?
So, does that mean that no energy is expended holding yourself at the top of a chinup?
There is work being done on a microscopic scale in your muscles. You might need a background in muscle biology to completely understand this, but this is the modern theory of how actin and myosin (the two proteins which make your muscles work) actually cause muscle contraction.
Basically, your muscle fibers are made up of billions of tiny ratchets which cog against another fiber, kind of like a rack-and-pinion steering system. When your muscle is applying force to an object, say, when doing a chinup, the ratchet teeth "slip" and the fibers slide past each other. To counteract this, the ratchets must flex again to pull the fiber back. All this ratcheting work eventually winds up as heat in your muscles.
If your arms were made of steel, it would take no energy to hold a chinup. This is because steel arms have no moving parts. It is important to know that your muscles are indeed still "moving" while holding a chinup, but at a microscopic scale you are not aware of. That's why it requires an exertion of energy to maintain a flexed position.
"The result was an ugly collision between the two less than one minute after the team made its first attempt at flight, around 11 a.m. Seventeen minutes later -- after a roll of cellophane was used to repair the damaged wing -- the team tried again."
That doesn't sound like massive damage to me, if they were able to patch it up with a roll of cellophane -- in 17 minutes. Sounds like part of the blade cracked or got smashed in, and that's it.
At which point, they continued the test:
"This time, the chain connecting pilot Peter Hudson's pedals to the top rotor snapped. Continued problems with the chain led Georgallis to finally abort the day's mission."
Sounds like they decided to give up before they did any real damage to the helicopter. So, rendering thousands of hours at $30,000 dollars wasted? I don't think so.
People have a way of blowing things way out of proportion, don't they?
Even their Ironman triathlete Engineer (who specalizes in endurace, not 1 minute intervals) is no match for the power output of a pro bike rider.
A pro bike rider is honed to ride on bicycles. Just because this thing has pedals doesn't mean the biomechanics are anything like riding a bicycle.
I would select a pilot who has had the most pedal time on that set of pedals and gears. In other words, probably an engineer who has spent lots of time working on the project.
I mean, who that's tech savvy enough to need steganography would feel comfortable downloading intentionally tampered.EXE's, even if they're not intending to run the dang things?
I feel no anxiety about EXE files. Maybe it's because I run Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, you're absolutely right!
I propose we rename the sky the Sky. After all, there's only one Sky.
Point out the specific entity which is "The Internet" to me, and I might agree.
The internet is a continuously evolving complex system. Routes change, nodes come on and off line, it never sits still. Referring to it as a proper entity makes about as much sense as referring to the people in Times Square as "The Crowd."
Right, because we all know that when water reaches an imaginary line in the ocean it turns around so there is no mixing of the perfectly well-separated "Atlantic" and "Pacific" oceans.
I further propose we create a "Nigerian Internet" to isolate ourselves from scammers.
That's great. Now I'll be able to see the pointless, demeaning, vapid content in the most precisely tuned shades of green the world has ever known!
Last time I checked, I did not need a license from the IETF to put a computer on the internet, I did not need to get permission to develop a new internet protocol, and I didn't feel the need to beg forgiveness from the IETF gods when I broke "the rules" and ran a web server on port 25.
It's like the ocean. The ocean is big, powerful, and impressive, and we owe our existence to it, but even still, we don't call it the Ocean, merely the ocean.
I think the internet is the same way.
Hence, we have things like X.509 certificates.
I think most of the works we're talking about here are artistic in nature, and I don't see that the rate of production of art has changed greatly as the population has exploded...
Stuff from outside that time frame, obviously. Unless the time frame is 5000 years or so, I'd say the majority of "stuff" people have created is not under copyright.
In other words, it's okay for rich countries like the US to use technology to optimize the performance of their athletes, to the detriment of those in poorer countries who do not have such advantages.
And yet, it is considered sacriligious to "violate" the spirit of competition by taking a few performance-enhancing drugs here and there?
It must be an SUV, because only an SUV owner could in any way construe that comment as a slight against SUVs.
It is a Fact that a collision between an SUV and a solar powered car that barely weighs more than its driver will result in death. How can you dispute this?
It makes absolutely no statement one way or another on the ethics of choosing to drive an SUV!
Wake up. As our technology advances, life is going to change, sometimes in increments that are uncomfortable to bear. Debates of morality and ethics will constantly shift and evolve. And guess what -- none of this is a "threat."
The word "sic" means "thus." Nothing more, nothing less.
Um, 2^12 * 5^10?
A clue, Watson. A very, very big clue.
What might it mean?
Trying to ever take it seriously in the first place was your mistake.
I'm quite amused at the number of sub-6-digit Slashdotters being reeled in on this hook...
No, the thinking is crystal clear. When a massive vehicle collides with a puny, composite solar car, death is a certain result.
Therefore, these massive vehicles will, in fact, deter the acceptance of solar technology. Solar cars by nature must be extremely lightweight, and nobody in their right mind would drive one on the same road as trucks and SUVs.
I do believe some relevance emerges from the fact that if all cars on the road were of the solar variety, collisions between them would be far less disastrous.
Hummers and other gratuitously massive vehicles are a real impediment to the acceptance of solar power vehicles, and this accident is a tragic demonstration of why.
1. The ISP usually will not care even if you report it.
2. Chances are low that is actually the attacker's machine -- more likely they have compromised it and are using it as a stepping stone.
3. If you try to retaliate, the kiddie may get pissed and DoS you.
4. The feds don't give a fuck.
Cracker kiddies are like hornets. They swarm, but unless you piss them off, they won't attack. And they're too stupid to get in the door. Ignore them.
Haha, aren't you smart.
Read the fucking rules:
"4.1.4 No devices for storing energy either for takeoff or for use in flight shall be permitted. Rotating aerodynamic components, such as rotor blades, used for lift and/or control are exempt from consideration as energy storing devices."
Wow, it seems you're not smarter than a committee of experienced engineers, after all, eh?
There is work being done on a microscopic scale in your muscles. You might need a background in muscle biology to completely understand this, but this is the modern theory of how actin and myosin (the two proteins which make your muscles work) actually cause muscle contraction.
Basically, your muscle fibers are made up of billions of tiny ratchets which cog against another fiber, kind of like a rack-and-pinion steering system. When your muscle is applying force to an object, say, when doing a chinup, the ratchet teeth "slip" and the fibers slide past each other. To counteract this, the ratchets must flex again to pull the fiber back. All this ratcheting work eventually winds up as heat in your muscles.
If your arms were made of steel, it would take no energy to hold a chinup. This is because steel arms have no moving parts. It is important to know that your muscles are indeed still "moving" while holding a chinup, but at a microscopic scale you are not aware of. That's why it requires an exertion of energy to maintain a flexed position.
"The result was an ugly collision between the two less than one minute after the team made its first attempt at flight, around 11 a.m. Seventeen minutes later -- after a roll of cellophane was used to repair the damaged wing -- the team tried again."
That doesn't sound like massive damage to me, if they were able to patch it up with a roll of cellophane -- in 17 minutes. Sounds like part of the blade cracked or got smashed in, and that's it.
At which point, they continued the test:
"This time, the chain connecting pilot Peter Hudson's pedals to the top rotor snapped. Continued problems with the chain led Georgallis to finally abort the day's mission."
Sounds like they decided to give up before they did any real damage to the helicopter. So, rendering thousands of hours at $30,000 dollars wasted? I don't think so.
People have a way of blowing things way out of proportion, don't they?
A pro bike rider is honed to ride on bicycles. Just because this thing has pedals doesn't mean the biomechanics are anything like riding a bicycle.
I would select a pilot who has had the most pedal time on that set of pedals and gears. In other words, probably an engineer who has spent lots of time working on the project.
I feel no anxiety about EXE files. Maybe it's because I run Linux.
Suppose eax = 0xFFFFFFFF.
Result of "inc ax": eax = 0xFFFF0000
Result of "inc al": eax = 0xFFFFFF00
Result of "inc eax": eax = 0x00000000
They don't do anything near the same thing. The carry bits get lost.
However, you can substitute "add ax, 1" for "inc ax", and "add al, 1" for "inc al", and "add eax, 1" for "inc eax".