In general, so is WinXp with SP2. The vast majority of problems on up-to-date computers doesn't come from security holes, it comes from people doing stupid things. People are just as able to install $VIRUS from $SHADY_WEBSITE on OSX as on Windows. The only saving grace is that Mac OS X doesn't effectively force users to run with Administrator/Root priviledges, as Windows does.
Burglars were just as able to break into his house as mine. His only saving grace was that he had a front door.
BTW, reminds me of an old saying "You can fix your own leaky sink but no one will call you a plumber, you suck one penis in prison, and you're a cocksucker for the rest os your life...."
Ahh, but you're not a professional cocksucker after just the one hummer are you? No-no, you're still an amateur, and you best not purport to be anything but! That's because, just like the plumbing and electrical professions, there are industry standards to be met. We can't have just any shmoe running around sucking wang without the correct, fully-authorized credentials.. now can we? Imagine the chaos that would ensue!
No thanks. I categorically refuse head from self-titled "professionals." Always insist on seeing certifications and/or licenses! Otherwise, who knows how satisfied you'll be with the results.
Please... how do you think people counted years before atomic clocks? For thousands of years prior, the Earth's regular orbit around the sun worked just fine. It's amazing how technology changes people's perspectives.
Yup. Well, except for the fact that we're not quite sure exactly how many thousands of years it's been, but still....
It's 2005AD, so that means it should be 2004 years from 1AD right?
Sure, the joke itself is pretty germane, but I think you'd be pretty silly to say there isn't a homophobic element to the stereotypes which that joke parodies. "Only gay people use macs," or "Macs are gay" are statements playing off an assumption that gay people are somehow less than you, and thus only fit to use the 'inferior' macs.
Incorrect. In many cases, such jokes are playing off the fact that these ridiculous stereotypes exist in the first place. Transcendant post-modern humor.
Oh yeah.. France is the problem now is it. Nothing to do with having elected a madman for president.. Twice.
Actually, it's just been the once if you'll recall.
You guys fucked it up all on your own. Just deal with it, and stop blaming everyone else.
Again, you appear to have missed an important world event. Bush didn't exactly win by a landslide, but no.. wait... I'm forgetting my US-borne guilt. You're right. Guantanamo is my fault, I take full responsibility.
Uh, yeah. One little thing. It's the government that is generally doing the terrorizing. While Hollywood kept you mesmerized with progressively lower quality entertainment, the US government has been busy overthrowing democratically elected governments in South America, supporting death squads who murder children in Honduras, that sort of thing. You were probably too busy watching the Superbowl to notice. Now, you look at them all wide eyed and wonder how they can worry about your little collection of burned CDs when there's some guy who wants to kill you for supporting the government that murdered his family?
I realize the popular pastime of US-bashing is at a record high right now, and I am certainly far far from pleased with a great many goings-on happening inside the government of the country where I reside, but.. Listen up.
There are (approximately) 250 million people living inside the United States. They do not all think alike. They are not all glued to a television. They are not all US football fans, and they do not all agree with whatever stance their elected government has currently chosen to take (or has taken in the past). If you wish to paint them all with the same brush, consider what it is that you are really doing. Consider the fact that whatever area of the world you live in is also populated with individuals of differing opinions, educational levels and attitudes.
If you really feel it's necessary that you be ranked as "superior" among the world's nations, start with tolerance; a quality in diminishing supply across the globe.
No, I keep saying it because it is what I believe.
Well then, I stand (or sit) corrected. Pardon my cynicism. Then again, on/., nobody can tell you are a dog.
So my choice is to accept *your* definition to be right (in your opinion), or hold to my own beliefs even if you don't agree?
This has nothing to do with your choice. I have no control (or desire to control) your decisions in any way, but we'll get to that in a second.
Given the assumption that you do believe what you are saying, would it then be accurate to assume that you believe "socialist" is a more apropos term for both Hitler and Stalin than "totalitarian" in the context of "Your Rights Online"? Note that I am not debating whether both men fell under the umbrella of "socialism" ideologically (in the original socialistic theory anyway), but... all things being equal, there are many adjectives that could be used to describe both of them. Some are more fitting than others. It seems as though you find the fact that they were technically "socialists" to be for more fitting (read: evil) than their totalitarian natures.
What part of free speech do you support?
All of it. Why is it that the modern electronic response to any debate/disagreement is a loudly proclaimed "you don't support free speech!" A classical ad hominem certainly, but a tiring and annoying one.
Let's put it this way: When "those-in-power" decree your particular opinion to be illicit, I'll be right there fighting with you, even if I don't share it.
You keep saying "Fucking socialists", obviously to get a rise out of people (which of course, did work, but it isn't hard to do these days). Labeling socialism as the root of all evil is painting with too broad a brush, despite your political agenda (or more likely, because of).
I suspect that the phrase: "Fucking totalitarianism, right or left." would be more accurate terminology.
No the writing was bad. Anyone who has seen McGregor and Portman (though she has yet to surpass her role in "Leon") in other movies knows this.
For which (Leon) I think we can pretty much give full credit to Luc Besson (and Reno), rather than Portman's stunning thespian talent. She has become quite the eye candy of late, but really.. I have difficulty finding any evidence of some supposed outstanding performance ability.
McGregor, on the other hand, is both a serious and talented method actor; obviously with Gary Oldman-esque aspirations. Sorry, just had to make the Leon tie-in and complete the circle.
Hopefully his willingness to participate in Lucas' ego-fest charade will not hinder any future opportunities.
Handguns are heavy. To make it easier to carry one around all day, Glock designed a line with some parts made of plastic rather than metal to make them a little lighter. It worked so well that now many handguns from other manufacturers have plastic frames.
Not so sure about the "Glock deisgned a line with some parts," but you could be right. Certainly modern glocks are just as heavy, if not heavier than other modern pistols. In fact, the modern glock is actually mostly metal, with the exception of the receiver (lower portion of a pistol, below the slide) and grip. The barrel is, as any reasonable person would assume, completely metal. I am not sure if there are any other manufactured materials in existance that are both strong enough and flexible enough to withstand the compression wave. Certainly none are inexpensive enough.;)
Maybe its time to come up with a better RFC for handling mail - one that doesn't allow you to fake the headers, sender, etc. Then also have the ISPs issue static IP addies, so zombies can be identified properly. It's not like this is any "bells and whistles" thing.
Right! For that you'd need Advanced Mail Transport Protocol!
The answer is that Darth Maul and Qui-Gon mastered the form 3 style of light saber combat and accord to The Wikipedia: The master practitioners of the "Way of the Hawk-Bat" make extensive use of acrobatic maneuvres often thought not physically possible.
I suspect that the real answer is that Maul was played by Ray Park, a lifelong martial artist and expert practitioner of both Chin Woo Shaolin Wushu (or Kung-fu as it is oft mislabled in the west) and Changquan Wushu. The later form (with the emphasis on art more than martial) is predominant in his choreography for TPM's duels.
His superior physical performance in that role brings to the screen the sort of effortless subtle kinematics only achievable by those with innate skill and many years of training; something that will never be fully replicated with CG. IMO, it was the only redeeming quality found in any of the last three crapisodes.
Frankly, I am surprised even that made it to the big screen. Lucas apparently has absolutely no idea what nuance is.
Did anyone else ever notice that Qui-Gon is conspicuously close to the english transliteration of "qui-gong"? (a form related to Tai Chi with focus on medicinal results)
In programming you don't try to fix every single frigging problem. Not if you want to get your software out this century. If it is demonstrated to be a relatively few and far between problem, then it's a waste of tim trying to fix it.
I suspect that this general attitude/belief is primarily responsible for most modern software absolutely and completely sucking.
My question, the one that gives me a headache to think about- is if the big bang is the source of the universe, what was around that little speck of matter before it exploded (yes I know that is an elementary way to describe the big bang)? Does space end? If it does, what is on the other side?
Same thing that is inside a singularity.
Next question?
Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
Evil will always succeed because people think this way.
Evil will often succeed because people don't realize the true nature of evil, being not some vague monster under the bed or biblical creature, but far worse. Rather, it is the mere ability of any and all human beings to delude themselves into thinking that their actions are undeniably moral in some scope, and that the ends unquestionably justify the means.
True evil is so insideous because any one of us can succumb to it out of our desire to improve ourselves or the world around us.
That's about all you can say. Your picture of "photon propagates at c, is absorbed and re-emitted" is a cartoon of the first term of a perturbation series, not a microscopic view of what is really going on. There's a whole lot of averaging and other math that goes between that cartoon and the final result of a calculation.
I agree completely that it is a vast simplification and most likely an over-simplification. I did not intend to imply that this model was quantumly accurate, as that is obviously impossible (describing such an interaction in macro-terms).
However, the point remains. C is C, and C does not change if propagation via a medium is involved. C involves no propagation at all, i.e. there is no "ether." The "speed" of force interactions are unrelated to this value.
It is likewise a logical fallacy to think of C as the "speed of light." It would be more accurate to describe the constant as the "speed of now", the fastest rate at which information can transit a reference space.
C is slower in water. This is what causes the cerenkov effect (blue glow) in nuclear reactors as particles are accelerated beyond C (in water).
No, it's not. Re-read my original response.
The noticable effect of light "slowing down" in a medium is due to quanta interacting with matter, not because the quanta actually "slows down." When a photon interacts with an atom it transfers energy (same force) to the electron shell. This causes an atomic state change which can only be sustained for a limited period of time. When the state reverts (and this, of course, depends on the properties of the matter in question) a photon is emitted. With transparent substances, such as water, the wavelength of the "new" photon is substantially similar to the original and "headed" in the same direction as the original photon.
During this brief period, it is accurate to say that the quantum wave function no longer exists as "light" (although the EM force bound to it continues to). Thus the perceived difference between C and C-propagating-through-water is merely the time taken for the medium to interact with the original "light."
(1) The speed of light is not a constant regardless of media or conditions there is a variability even with frequency. This has long been observed.
Might tall assertion there, bucko. References?
I'm not sure exactly what "media" has to do with anything. EM is indeed a wave function, but there is no propogation in the sense of a physical wave. Interaction with matter is unrelated to C. So this leaves "variability [of C] even with frequency." If this has been so widely observed, you can, of course, provide references for these observations?
So, you don't have to endure it. It is really Sturgeon's Law, 90% of everything is crap, only with the lowering costs to produce/publish/distribute the bar is lowered. So instead of getting loads of crap and some good stuff just from people paid to make it, now you get it from people doing it for fun.
It's worse than 90%, but perhaps I am just a snob.
You are on to something though; a very disconcerting trend. The deluge of crap, be it in the form of hyper-commercialized Britney Spears or Bob "I'm Neil Jordan" With-the-camcorder, seems to continuously be worsening the signal-to-noise ratio. This makes it more and more difficult to find the true savants (and they are out there) who are either unlucky enough to not have the financial resources to further their art or are simply disgusted with tripe such as this to the point of disillusionment.
really? I cant find any gyros on the $13,000.00 steadicam outfit we have at work.
have you even seen a real steadicam setup?
The key is weight balance, high quality gimbals and a weight distribution system that does not kill the operator by transferring the weight to his hips and torso.
Ding, ding ding. We have a winner.
Steadicams do not work via gyroscopic precession, but rather through the careful use of inertial isolation between the rig and the operator as well as moving the center of gravity outside of the camera.
That being said, it does take a skilled operator to not add any instability in highly dynamic shots.
Like us humans do not care much about a dog barking at the mailman, since explaining to a dog the purpose of a mailman's visit is beyond a dog's comprehension.
Ahhh, but might not the dog seem much more interesting if you had never before seen a dog?
Slashdot Mirror
In general, so is WinXp with SP2. The vast majority of problems on up-to-date computers doesn't come from security holes, it comes from people doing stupid things. People are just as able to install $VIRUS from $SHADY_WEBSITE on OSX as on Windows. The only saving grace is that Mac OS X doesn't effectively force users to run with Administrator/Root priviledges, as Windows does.
Burglars were just as able to break into his house as mine. His only saving grace was that he had a front door.
BTW, reminds me of an old saying "You can fix your own leaky sink but no one will call you a plumber, you suck one penis in prison, and you're a cocksucker for the rest os your life...."
.. now can we? Imagine the chaos that would ensue!
Ahh, but you're not a professional cocksucker after just the one hummer are you? No-no, you're still an amateur, and you best not purport to be anything but! That's because, just like the plumbing and electrical professions, there are industry standards to be met. We can't have just any shmoe running around sucking wang without the correct, fully-authorized credentials
No thanks. I categorically refuse head from self-titled "professionals." Always insist on seeing certifications and/or licenses! Otherwise, who knows how satisfied you'll be with the results.
Please... how do you think people counted years before atomic clocks? For thousands of years prior, the Earth's regular orbit around the sun worked just fine. It's amazing how technology changes people's perspectives.
Yup. Well, except for the fact that we're not quite sure exactly how many thousands of years it's been, but still....
It's 2005AD, so that means it should be 2004 years from 1AD right?
The good ole' US of A will never be able to colonize mars. There's no native population to exploit!
Or, maybe. If there are martians... Break out the blankets, boys!
Sure, the joke itself is pretty germane, but I think you'd be pretty silly to say there isn't a homophobic element to the stereotypes which that joke parodies. "Only gay people use macs," or "Macs are gay" are statements playing off an assumption that gay people are somehow less than you, and thus only fit to use the 'inferior' macs.
Incorrect. In many cases, such jokes are playing off the fact that these ridiculous stereotypes exist in the first place. Transcendant post-modern humor.
Oh yeah.. France is the problem now is it. Nothing to do with having elected a madman for president.. Twice.
Actually, it's just been the once if you'll recall.
You guys fucked it up all on your own. Just deal with it, and stop blaming everyone else.
Again, you appear to have missed an important world event. Bush didn't exactly win by a landslide, but no.. wait... I'm forgetting my US-borne guilt. You're right. Guantanamo is my fault, I take full responsibility.
Fine by me. A crossbow is just as deadly, and oh, my, what do you know? I can use one.
Oh, yeah? What kinda cyclic rate you get on that puppy?
Uh, yeah. One little thing. It's the government that is generally doing the terrorizing. While Hollywood kept you mesmerized with progressively lower quality entertainment, the US government has been busy overthrowing democratically elected governments in South America, supporting death squads who murder children in Honduras, that sort of thing. You were probably too busy watching the Superbowl to notice. Now, you look at them all wide eyed and wonder how they can worry about your little collection of burned CDs when there's some guy who wants to kill you for supporting the government that murdered his family?
.. Listen up.
I realize the popular pastime of US-bashing is at a record high right now, and I am certainly far far from pleased with a great many goings-on happening inside the government of the country where I reside, but
There are (approximately) 250 million people living inside the United States. They do not all think alike. They are not all glued to a television. They are not all US football fans, and they do not all agree with whatever stance their elected government has currently chosen to take (or has taken in the past). If you wish to paint them all with the same brush, consider what it is that you are really doing. Consider the fact that whatever area of the world you live in is also populated with individuals of differing opinions, educational levels and attitudes.
If you really feel it's necessary that you be ranked as "superior" among the world's nations, start with tolerance ; a quality in diminishing supply across the globe.
No, I keep saying it because it is what I believe.
/., nobody can tell you are a dog.
... all things being equal, there are many adjectives that could be used to describe both of them. Some are more fitting than others. It seems as though you find the fact that they were technically "socialists" to be for more fitting (read: evil) than their totalitarian natures.
Well then, I stand (or sit) corrected. Pardon my cynicism. Then again, on
So my choice is to accept *your* definition to be right (in your opinion), or hold to my own beliefs even if you don't agree?
This has nothing to do with your choice. I have no control (or desire to control) your decisions in any way, but we'll get to that in a second.
Given the assumption that you do believe what you are saying, would it then be accurate to assume that you believe "socialist" is a more apropos term for both Hitler and Stalin than "totalitarian" in the context of "Your Rights Online"? Note that I am not debating whether both men fell under the umbrella of "socialism" ideologically (in the original socialistic theory anyway), but
What part of free speech do you support?
All of it. Why is it that the modern electronic response to any debate/disagreement is a loudly proclaimed "you don't support free speech!" A classical ad hominem certainly, but a tiring and annoying one.
Let's put it this way: When "those-in-power" decree your particular opinion to be illicit, I'll be right there fighting with you, even if I don't share it.
You keep saying "Fucking socialists", obviously to get a rise out of people (which of course, did work, but it isn't hard to do these days). Labeling socialism as the root of all evil is painting with too broad a brush, despite your political agenda (or more likely, because of).
I suspect that the phrase: "Fucking totalitarianism, right or left." would be more accurate terminology.
No the writing was bad. Anyone who has seen McGregor and Portman (though she has yet to surpass her role in "Leon") in other movies knows this.
.. I have difficulty finding any evidence of some supposed outstanding performance ability.
For which (Leon) I think we can pretty much give full credit to Luc Besson (and Reno), rather than Portman's stunning thespian talent. She has become quite the eye candy of late, but really
McGregor, on the other hand, is both a serious and talented method actor; obviously with Gary Oldman-esque aspirations. Sorry, just had to make the Leon tie-in and complete the circle.
Hopefully his willingness to participate in Lucas' ego-fest charade will not hinder any future opportunities.
Handguns are heavy. To make it easier to carry one around all day, Glock designed a line with some parts made of plastic rather than metal to make them a little lighter. It worked so well that now many handguns from other manufacturers have plastic frames.
;)
Not so sure about the "Glock deisgned a line with some parts," but you could be right. Certainly modern glocks are just as heavy, if not heavier than other modern pistols. In fact, the modern glock is actually mostly metal, with the exception of the receiver (lower portion of a pistol, below the slide) and grip. The barrel is, as any reasonable person would assume, completely metal. I am not sure if there are any other manufactured materials in existance that are both strong enough and flexible enough to withstand the compression wave. Certainly none are inexpensive enough.
Maybe its time to come up with a better RFC for handling mail - one that doesn't allow you to fake the headers, sender, etc. Then also have the ISPs issue static IP addies, so zombies can be identified properly. It's not like this is any "bells and whistles" thing.
Right! For that you'd need Advanced Mail Transport Protocol!
The answer is that Darth Maul and Qui-Gon mastered the form 3 style of light saber combat and accord to The Wikipedia: The master practitioners of the "Way of the Hawk-Bat" make extensive use of acrobatic maneuvres often thought not physically possible.
I suspect that the real answer is that Maul was played by Ray Park, a lifelong martial artist and expert practitioner of both Chin Woo Shaolin Wushu (or Kung-fu as it is oft mislabled in the west) and Changquan Wushu. The later form (with the emphasis on art more than martial) is predominant in his choreography for TPM's duels.
His superior physical performance in that role brings to the screen the sort of effortless subtle kinematics only achievable by those with innate skill and many years of training; something that will never be fully replicated with CG. IMO, it was the only redeeming quality found in any of the last three crapisodes.
Frankly, I am surprised even that made it to the big screen. Lucas apparently has absolutely no idea what nuance is.
Did anyone else ever notice that Qui-Gon is conspicuously close to the english transliteration of "qui-gong"? (a form related to Tai Chi with focus on medicinal results)
In programming you don't try to fix every single frigging problem. Not if you want to get your software out this century. If it is demonstrated to be a relatively few and far between problem, then it's a waste of tim trying to fix it.
I suspect that this general attitude/belief is primarily responsible for most modern software absolutely and completely sucking.
Really? How do you prove the scientific method? Do you use the scientific method? If you do, aren't you being circular?
You don't. It's not a theory, it's a method. Note the fact that it isn't called the "scientific theory", but rather the "scientific method."
If your point is that the method doesn't "work", then how do you explain the ability to follow it and predict an experimental outcome accurately?
My question, the one that gives me a headache to think about- is if the big bang is the source of the universe, what was around that little speck of matter before it exploded (yes I know that is an elementary way to describe the big bang)? Does space end? If it does, what is on the other side?
Same thing that is inside a singularity.
Next question?
Evil will always triumph because good is dumb. Evil will always succeed because people think this way.
Evil will often succeed because people don't realize the true nature of evil, being not some vague monster under the bed or biblical creature, but far worse. Rather, it is the mere ability of any and all human beings to delude themselves into thinking that their actions are undeniably moral in some scope, and that the ends unquestionably justify the means.
True evil is so insideous because any one of us can succumb to it out of our desire to improve ourselves or the world around us.
That's about all you can say. Your picture of "photon propagates at c, is absorbed and re-emitted" is a cartoon of the first term of a perturbation series, not a microscopic view of what is really going on. There's a whole lot of averaging and other math that goes between that cartoon and the final result of a calculation.
I agree completely that it is a vast simplification and most likely an over-simplification. I did not intend to imply that this model was quantumly accurate, as that is obviously impossible (describing such an interaction in macro-terms).
However, the point remains. C is C, and C does not change if propagation via a medium is involved. C involves no propagation at all, i.e. there is no "ether." The "speed" of force interactions are unrelated to this value.
It is likewise a logical fallacy to think of C as the "speed of light." It would be more accurate to describe the constant as the "speed of now", the fastest rate at which information can transit a reference space.
C is slower in water. This is what causes the cerenkov effect (blue glow) in nuclear reactors as particles are accelerated beyond C (in water).
No, it's not. Re-read my original response.
The noticable effect of light "slowing down" in a medium is due to quanta interacting with matter, not because the quanta actually "slows down." When a photon interacts with an atom it transfers energy (same force) to the electron shell. This causes an atomic state change which can only be sustained for a limited period of time. When the state reverts (and this, of course, depends on the properties of the matter in question) a photon is emitted. With transparent substances, such as water, the wavelength of the "new" photon is substantially similar to the original and "headed" in the same direction as the original photon.
During this brief period, it is accurate to say that the quantum wave function no longer exists as "light" (although the EM force bound to it continues to). Thus the perceived difference between C and C-propagating-through-water is merely the time taken for the medium to interact with the original "light."
(1) The speed of light is not a constant regardless of media or conditions there is a variability even with frequency. This has long been observed.
Might tall assertion there, bucko. References?
I'm not sure exactly what "media" has to do with anything. EM is indeed a wave function, but there is no propogation in the sense of a physical wave. Interaction with matter is unrelated to C. So this leaves "variability [of C] even with frequency." If this has been so widely observed, you can, of course, provide references for these observations?
So, you don't have to endure it. It is really Sturgeon's Law, 90% of everything is crap, only with the lowering costs to produce/publish/distribute the bar is lowered. So instead of getting loads of crap and some good stuff just from people paid to make it, now you get it from people doing it for fun.
It's worse than 90%, but perhaps I am just a snob.
You are on to something though; a very disconcerting trend. The deluge of crap, be it in the form of hyper-commercialized Britney Spears or Bob "I'm Neil Jordan" With-the-camcorder, seems to continuously be worsening the signal-to-noise ratio. This makes it more and more difficult to find the true savants (and they are out there) who are either unlucky enough to not have the financial resources to further their art or are simply disgusted with tripe such as this to the point of disillusionment.
really? I cant find any gyros on the $13,000.00 steadicam outfit we have at work.
have you even seen a real steadicam setup?
The key is weight balance, high quality gimbals and a weight distribution system that does not kill the operator by transferring the weight to his hips and torso.
Ding, ding ding. We have a winner.
Steadicams do not work via gyroscopic precession, but rather through the careful use of inertial isolation between the rig and the operator as well as moving the center of gravity outside of the camera.
That being said, it does take a skilled operator to not add any instability in highly dynamic shots.
Or even better:
.... :
±061803 39887 49894
or
1011010110110101101
=P
Like us humans do not care much about a dog barking at the mailman, since explaining to a dog the purpose of a mailman's visit is beyond a dog's comprehension.
Ahhh, but might not the dog seem much more interesting if you had never before seen a dog?