It isn't evidence if there isn't a formal criminal investigation.
I don't know anything about this DYFS organization aside from what I briefly read on their web site, but they hardly seem qualified to act in the capacity of law enforcement and collect evidence pertaining to criminal investigations.
They probably use shaky threats with no legal basis in order to scare people into turning over materials. The BSA does the same thing to companies they suspect of pirating software -- show up at the front door, dressed up similar to law enforcement types, demanding to be let in. They have no legs to stand on, but they are good intimidators and often end up convincing people to do things they really never had to do.
So, unless there is an active investigation going on involving actual law enforcement, I don't see how a person choosing to overwrite the data on a piece of their own property could possibly qualify as "tampering with evidence," formal-sounding requests from various four-letter agencies NOTwithstanding.
Why isn't it? Maybe reduce or eliminate fan proliforation?
Because a heat "sink" is a large mass of metal designed to store excess heat. It doesn't eliminate the heat. Heat sinks on processors are worthless without a fan on top of them, for example. You need to take the heat away, not just store it somewhere.
Large heat sinks can do without fans because they have a large effective surface area to radiate and conduct the heat away. In order for the case to be effective as a sink it would have to be very thick and heavy (and expensive). What's the point?
Besides, do you really want the outside of your case to be hot to the touch?
Wouldn't the wood covering just act like an insulator?
So what? A computer doesn't cool by radiant heat transfer. Hold your hand an inch from the case -- feel any heat radiating off it? The case is not a heat sink. It's made of metal primarily because it shields EM radiation.
The air being blown through the case by your fans is what cools the system. The thermal resistance of the case material is irrelevant.
You can't trust open-source for this, either. Not unless you personally constructed every piece of the device, from the source code, to everything that interacts with the source code, including the compiler, the EEPROM burners, and the chipsets on the device itself.
Even that's not good enough. It isn't enough to have the source -- the source code might say something like "write zeros over entire disk on April 10, 2004" and you'd never notice it. Who the hell actually reads the source code before compiling it? Of the people who do, how many are skilled enough to actually recognize a very clever back door?
Has somebody ever sent you a helpful bash script for some common administration task? Did you actually read the script, to make sure there's no line in there saying 'rm -rf/'?
I can blow you up with a stick of dynamite. Or I can send you a recipe for making "Ted's Delicious Cookies" which is actually a recipe for dynamite, and hope that you're stupid enough that you'll blow yourself up. Except with source code it's much easier to conceal nasty things.
Re:Why jog when you can jog and bike ?
on
Running for Geeks
·
· Score: 1
Come on folks, can't we all get along?
I'm all for a nice discussion of the benefits of cycling vs. running, and that's what I thought we were having.
If I seemed a little irritable it's only because he chose to frame it in a "running is inferior" sort of tone. I was just answering in kind.
I think the message of my post was quite clear -- if you enjoy biking, by all means do so, but don't criticize me for choosing running. He listed some reasons why he thought running is "inferior" and I simply countered his arguments. Do I think running is a better way to exercise? Of course I do, and I'm entitled to the opinion -- but I never even implied that a bike rider is somehow inferior to a runner.
Yes, I feel strongly that you shouldn't carry a lot of technological junk with you -- whether biking or running. If you view that as snotty, you'd better stop expressing your opinions in public now, because that's all I was doing.
I wasn't criticizing the fact that he's a biker -- I was countering his criticisms of running, and his seeming need to distract himself from the activity at hand by bringing a lot of superfluous equipment.
Wow, that's stupid. As I'm sure you know, by "easy on your feet, knees, and back", he meant it doesn't injure them. Biking is not easy either. Do you like injuring yourself?
Of course not. First, debilitating injuries are not inevitable. Do you really think that creatures which evolved as hunter-gatherers are physiologically not meant to run? Get real. Yes, the body naturally, slowly wears out as it ages. And I'm having a fantastic time wearing it out. Your experience seems to be ruined by constantly worrying about whether you're doing things "right."
I love to run. I'm not caught up in this hypochondriacal obsession with "fitness" these days which amount essentially to physical fitness only. People confine themselves to strict, ridiculously boring regimens of training, which are designed to somehow "optimize" their exercise, or to avoid certain kinds of "damage." I think these people completely miss the point.
Running is something I do for my mental health. I don't go 3 miles out of my way to avoid potential injuries, but I don't abuse my body, either. My concern when I run is that I feel great afterwards. An occasionally aching knee or ankle is just a part of the experience, and serves to remind me why I love it so much.
I'm sure you're happy with your bike. I'm happy you're happy. Now, stop being childish by telling everyone that the only right way is your way.
Re:Why jog when you can bike ?
on
Running for Geeks
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Jogging? What's that? I'm a runner.
infinitely much easier on your feet, knees and back.
If I wanted something easy on me, I'd have chosen knitting.
you can spend much more power, and you have more flexibility in choosing a suitable power level
With the aid of a bunch of equipment...
you can cover a larger area so it's less boring
You don't know how to "get into" things. Running is a frame of mind, not a mode of transportation.
more flexibility in duration. Biking 8 hours a day is no problem for an untrained person, but running is.
Why do you insist on measuring the value in terms of distance travelled and time spent? And a runner can slow to a walk if he/she is tired.
you can carry some luggage easily (iPod, phone, gps, book to read while pausing, drinks)
God, none of that crap belongs on me when I'm running. Sounds like you need a whole bunch of shit to prevent yourself from being bored while performing your "hobby."
you don't need to wear silly clothing (although you certainly can)
Folks, it doesn't get much dorkier than being concerned with what your clothing looks like. Especially when you're performing an activity that causes you to sweat. "Hey, at least my sweat-soaked shirt is stylin'..." Sheesh.
a modern bike is way more interesting technically than running shoes.
Sounds like you bike because somebody told you it'd be good for your health. Everything you've said seems to imply you don't even enjoy doing it -- complaining about exertion, relief from boredom, physical discomfort, etc...
Feel free to bike, and tell others to bike, but don't compare what you do to what a runner does. It's cliche to say it, but if you have to ask why we run, there's nothing we can possibly say that will ever explain it to you.
If every down load kills one record sale then the download meter should look like the burgers sold sign at McD's.
Are you stupid?
You don't need to break the law to hurt the RIAA. Don't buy their music, period. This has nothing to do with whether it gets downloaded or not. Downloading music does not hurt the record companies. Failing to buy it is what hurts.
Speaking of McDonald's, it baffles me why so many people denounce the current popular music as "trash" and then turn around and download it as if they will cease breathing if they don't get their fix. Quite like how people gorge on the shit they call "food" at McDonald's.
Either stand up for what you say you believe in, or quit saying it. If the RIAA sucks, then stop listening to the music produced by its member companies. Otherwise you're just a fucking hypocrite.
If one saw halter tops, navel piercings, and makeup as inherently sexual, they would be both troubled and deeply out of step with today's Western society.
You are simply in denial. You need to realize this.
Heck, makeup is seen as pretty much a requirement for women (and increasingly, men) just to make a business presentation.
Women have it easy. They can use makeup and clothing to affect men in subtle, unconscious, sexual ways. Men are wired to respond to visual stimulation. Women are not. Makeup on men is pointless, and I think you're lying when you say businessmen use it to gain any sort of edge.
In particular, if you look at a five year old with makeup on and thing sex, then you need professional help.
The person in need of help is the parent who thought it would be a good idea to allow their child to display a blatantly sexual signal. It's not like I have a sexual response to it or anything -- I merely perceive the sexual nature of the message.
As for halter tops and piercings, they're simply the clothing of the time.
No, they are a symptom of the quiet sexualization of society. This, I have no problem with. What is very wrong, however, is the inconsistency between this sexualization, and our claimed attitudes toward sex.
The only real difference between you and me is that I have the guts to say what I'm really thinking rather than toeing the social line out of fear of rejection, or of having people such as you react in feigned "disgust."
I just hope that Bush gets voted out in november, so that we can ditch Ashcroft. He is completely out of touch with morality in this country!
The problem with the Puritanical morality of the US right now is that it's insincere. People claim to be "offended" by things because it's in style, not because they are actually offended.
Notice the subtle but highly effective sexualization in advertisements. We seem to accept this, and allow our children to view it. We let 10 year old kids walk around with halter tops and belly button piercings. I saw a kid no older than 5 in a restaurant recently wearing makeup. Nice. That's what I want to think of when looking at a 5 year old, sex.
And yet at the same time, Janet Jackson's boobie pops out and we all have a fucking heart attack. It's all fake, it's a fucking fake reaction that we are all mutually emulating. Other people seem offended, so by God, I should be offended too!
The thing is, nobody (or at least, hardly anybody) is really offended by it.
Americans are fucking schizophrenic, and it's only getting worse. This Puritanical neoconservatism is really, truly dangerous.
...is that instead of turning the other cheek, so many of them are bound and determined to be assholes about content that they don't like, but other people do.
Nitpick... "Turning the other cheek" doesn't mean "Turning a blind eye." It means if someone smacks your face, you should turn and allow them to smack the other side as well.
Such behavior today would get you branded an idiot or a lunatic. How sad.
I wasn't seriously suggesting that anybody attempt anything. I was trying to explain how the math works.
You can also measure the resistance of your body by sticking paperclips into the wall receptable and measuring the time it takes for you to catch on fire.
Can you imagine the fuel economy of a car with a small gas motor that can fully recharge your batterypack in a few seconds?
You don't have to imagine it. Cars in Germany get 60 or more miles to the gallon.
The way the US is so obsessed with hybrids, when there are perfectly conventional alternatives that get even better mileage off diesel fuel, is really ridiculous.
If the laptop battery runs at 14 volts, that means that one would need at least a 8400 watt recharger - a solid 70 Amps on a 120 AC circuit.
I'll point out that home circuit breakers blow around 10 to 15 amps, so it would be physically impossible to run such a charger off a normal house circuit (and illegal and dangerous if you modified the fuses to allow it).
Depends on the internal resistance of the battery. You can measure the internal resistance by shorting the battery through an ammeter and measuring the terminal voltage. Terminal voltage when shorted, divided by current through the ammeter, gives internal resistance.
Now, take the square of the charging current and multiply by the internal resistance. This gives the heat dissipation in watts.
The article gives no real numbers, but let's assume the battery can supply about 5 amp-hours. To get a full charge in 30 seconds, you would need a charging current of 600 amps (!!) Heat dissipation would be 360000 times the internal resistance of the battery -- in order to dissipate fewer than 10 watts the internal resistance would have to be less than 0.000028 ohms.
At 0.000028 ohms, and a made-up terminal voltage of 7 volts, you could draw 250000 amps out of such a battery when shorted. Jesus Christ.
But those numbers came out of my ass. We need real values...
The mass of idiots churning out of CS programs everywhere has diluted the perceived value of our degree. They also monopolize the professors' valuable time (and therefore decrease the education value for the students who are passionate for the subject) with their moronic questioning.
I seem to remember using a language called Rex (one X, I think) while I was taking classes at Harvey Mudd. It wasn't a scripting language -- it was some kind of functional language with parameter pattern matching.
Has anyone else heard of this Rex (one X) language?
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong, look at diamond, which has negligible electrical conductivity but extremely good heat conductivity.
I don't know anything about this DYFS organization aside from what I briefly read on their web site, but they hardly seem qualified to act in the capacity of law enforcement and collect evidence pertaining to criminal investigations.
They probably use shaky threats with no legal basis in order to scare people into turning over materials. The BSA does the same thing to companies they suspect of pirating software -- show up at the front door, dressed up similar to law enforcement types, demanding to be let in. They have no legs to stand on, but they are good intimidators and often end up convincing people to do things they really never had to do.
So, unless there is an active investigation going on involving actual law enforcement, I don't see how a person choosing to overwrite the data on a piece of their own property could possibly qualify as "tampering with evidence," formal-sounding requests from various four-letter agencies NOTwithstanding.
But IANAL.
Why isn't it? Maybe reduce or eliminate fan proliforation?
Because a heat "sink" is a large mass of metal designed to store excess heat. It doesn't eliminate the heat. Heat sinks on processors are worthless without a fan on top of them, for example. You need to take the heat away, not just store it somewhere.
Large heat sinks can do without fans because they have a large effective surface area to radiate and conduct the heat away. In order for the case to be effective as a sink it would have to be very thick and heavy (and expensive). What's the point?
Besides, do you really want the outside of your case to be hot to the touch?
So what? A computer doesn't cool by radiant heat transfer. Hold your hand an inch from the case -- feel any heat radiating off it? The case is not a heat sink. It's made of metal primarily because it shields EM radiation.
The air being blown through the case by your fans is what cools the system. The thermal resistance of the case material is irrelevant.
A "dumb" switch can be ARP-poisoned to send somebody else's traffic to your port.
There's plenty of stuff you can do, you just have to learn about the particular equipment you're working with.
Even that's not good enough. It isn't enough to have the source -- the source code might say something like "write zeros over entire disk on April 10, 2004" and you'd never notice it. Who the hell actually reads the source code before compiling it? Of the people who do, how many are skilled enough to actually recognize a very clever back door?
Has somebody ever sent you a helpful bash script for some common administration task? Did you actually read the script, to make sure there's no line in there saying 'rm -rf /'?
I can blow you up with a stick of dynamite. Or I can send you a recipe for making "Ted's Delicious Cookies" which is actually a recipe for dynamite, and hope that you're stupid enough that you'll blow yourself up. Except with source code it's much easier to conceal nasty things.
I'm all for a nice discussion of the benefits of cycling vs. running, and that's what I thought we were having.
If I seemed a little irritable it's only because he chose to frame it in a "running is inferior" sort of tone. I was just answering in kind.
Yes, I feel strongly that you shouldn't carry a lot of technological junk with you -- whether biking or running. If you view that as snotty, you'd better stop expressing your opinions in public now, because that's all I was doing.
I wasn't criticizing the fact that he's a biker -- I was countering his criticisms of running, and his seeming need to distract himself from the activity at hand by bringing a lot of superfluous equipment.
Going bike shopping? I think that's fantastic.
Of course not. First, debilitating injuries are not inevitable. Do you really think that creatures which evolved as hunter-gatherers are physiologically not meant to run? Get real. Yes, the body naturally, slowly wears out as it ages. And I'm having a fantastic time wearing it out. Your experience seems to be ruined by constantly worrying about whether you're doing things "right."
I love to run. I'm not caught up in this hypochondriacal obsession with "fitness" these days which amount essentially to physical fitness only. People confine themselves to strict, ridiculously boring regimens of training, which are designed to somehow "optimize" their exercise, or to avoid certain kinds of "damage." I think these people completely miss the point.
Running is something I do for my mental health. I don't go 3 miles out of my way to avoid potential injuries, but I don't abuse my body, either. My concern when I run is that I feel great afterwards. An occasionally aching knee or ankle is just a part of the experience, and serves to remind me why I love it so much.
I'm sure you're happy with your bike. I'm happy you're happy. Now, stop being childish by telling everyone that the only right way is your way.
If I wanted something easy on me, I'd have chosen knitting.
you can spend much more power, and you have more flexibility in choosing a suitable power level
With the aid of a bunch of equipment...
you can cover a larger area so it's less boring
You don't know how to "get into" things. Running is a frame of mind, not a mode of transportation.
more flexibility in duration. Biking 8 hours a day is no problem for an untrained person, but running is.
Why do you insist on measuring the value in terms of distance travelled and time spent? And a runner can slow to a walk if he/she is tired.
you can carry some luggage easily (iPod, phone, gps, book to read while pausing, drinks)
God, none of that crap belongs on me when I'm running. Sounds like you need a whole bunch of shit to prevent yourself from being bored while performing your "hobby."
you don't need to wear silly clothing (although you certainly can)
Folks, it doesn't get much dorkier than being concerned with what your clothing looks like. Especially when you're performing an activity that causes you to sweat. "Hey, at least my sweat-soaked shirt is stylin'..." Sheesh.
a modern bike is way more interesting technically than running shoes.
Sounds like you bike because somebody told you it'd be good for your health. Everything you've said seems to imply you don't even enjoy doing it -- complaining about exertion, relief from boredom, physical discomfort, etc...
Feel free to bike, and tell others to bike, but don't compare what you do to what a runner does. It's cliche to say it, but if you have to ask why we run, there's nothing we can possibly say that will ever explain it to you.
Are you stupid?
You don't need to break the law to hurt the RIAA. Don't buy their music, period. This has nothing to do with whether it gets downloaded or not. Downloading music does not hurt the record companies. Failing to buy it is what hurts.
Speaking of McDonald's, it baffles me why so many people denounce the current popular music as "trash" and then turn around and download it as if they will cease breathing if they don't get their fix. Quite like how people gorge on the shit they call "food" at McDonald's.
Either stand up for what you say you believe in, or quit saying it. If the RIAA sucks, then stop listening to the music produced by its member companies. Otherwise you're just a fucking hypocrite.
You are simply in denial. You need to realize this.
Heck, makeup is seen as pretty much a requirement for women (and increasingly, men) just to make a business presentation.
Women have it easy. They can use makeup and clothing to affect men in subtle, unconscious, sexual ways. Men are wired to respond to visual stimulation. Women are not. Makeup on men is pointless, and I think you're lying when you say businessmen use it to gain any sort of edge.
In particular, if you look at a five year old with makeup on and thing sex, then you need professional help.
The person in need of help is the parent who thought it would be a good idea to allow their child to display a blatantly sexual signal. It's not like I have a sexual response to it or anything -- I merely perceive the sexual nature of the message.
As for halter tops and piercings, they're simply the clothing of the time.
No, they are a symptom of the quiet sexualization of society. This, I have no problem with. What is very wrong, however, is the inconsistency between this sexualization, and our claimed attitudes toward sex.
The only real difference between you and me is that I have the guts to say what I'm really thinking rather than toeing the social line out of fear of rejection, or of having people such as you react in feigned "disgust."
The problem with the Puritanical morality of the US right now is that it's insincere. People claim to be "offended" by things because it's in style, not because they are actually offended.
Notice the subtle but highly effective sexualization in advertisements. We seem to accept this, and allow our children to view it. We let 10 year old kids walk around with halter tops and belly button piercings. I saw a kid no older than 5 in a restaurant recently wearing makeup. Nice. That's what I want to think of when looking at a 5 year old, sex.
And yet at the same time, Janet Jackson's boobie pops out and we all have a fucking heart attack. It's all fake, it's a fucking fake reaction that we are all mutually emulating. Other people seem offended, so by God, I should be offended too!
The thing is, nobody (or at least, hardly anybody) is really offended by it.
Americans are fucking schizophrenic, and it's only getting worse. This Puritanical neoconservatism is really, truly dangerous.
Nitpick... "Turning the other cheek" doesn't mean "Turning a blind eye." It means if someone smacks your face, you should turn and allow them to smack the other side as well.
Such behavior today would get you branded an idiot or a lunatic. How sad.
Regardless, that was not the point of my post.
You can also measure the resistance of your body by sticking paperclips into the wall receptable and measuring the time it takes for you to catch on fire.
I somehow doubt they have found a way to attach an alternator to a turbojet axle :-)
You don't have to imagine it. Cars in Germany get 60 or more miles to the gallon.
The way the US is so obsessed with hybrids, when there are perfectly conventional alternatives that get even better mileage off diesel fuel, is really ridiculous.
It's a freaking crime against the earth, really.
I'll point out that home circuit breakers blow around 10 to 15 amps, so it would be physically impossible to run such a charger off a normal house circuit (and illegal and dangerous if you modified the fuses to allow it).
Now, take the square of the charging current and multiply by the internal resistance. This gives the heat dissipation in watts.
The article gives no real numbers, but let's assume the battery can supply about 5 amp-hours. To get a full charge in 30 seconds, you would need a charging current of 600 amps (!!) Heat dissipation would be 360000 times the internal resistance of the battery -- in order to dissipate fewer than 10 watts the internal resistance would have to be less than 0.000028 ohms.
At 0.000028 ohms, and a made-up terminal voltage of 7 volts, you could draw 250000 amps out of such a battery when shorted. Jesus Christ. But those numbers came out of my ass. We need real values...
But rim brakes provide more braking torque for the same brake pressure and therefore don't wear the brake pads out as quickly...
Clearly, humans aren't even 100% accurate. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
The mass of idiots churning out of CS programs everywhere has diluted the perceived value of our degree. They also monopolize the professors' valuable time (and therefore decrease the education value for the students who are passionate for the subject) with their moronic questioning.
I say good riddance to them.
Yes yes, and imagine if Genghis Khan had had nuclear weapons, yadda yadda yadda...
Has anyone else heard of this Rex (one X) language?