Wow, that's a really negative way to put it. If someone I know starts biking a lot, I think, "wow, good to see you making an effort to improve your health" along with, "thank you for reducing your carbon footprint", not, "you're a drunk loser!"
About the most negative thing I think of when I learn someone I know is switching to biking is, "Gee, watch out for all the idiots in cars who are trying to kill you!"
Physical security and securing your Internetworked computer are actually qualitatively different issues.
Sure, your network security can be circumvented if physical access is easy.
However, ANY criminal ANYWHERE in the world can get at your insecure Internetworked computer. Furthermore, they can often do it in automated fashion with minimal risk!
Physical access, on the other hand, requires that the criminal show up in person. That vastly limits his scope for criminal behavior and vastly increases his risk. Given that, I'm not sure it really makes sense to compare the adequacy of physical security measures to network security measures.
If I'd been the TA, I would have given you 98% too despite your misreading of the spec, even without your "fix". Come on, a 0 for getting it 98% right? With a trivial fix?
Overly rigid grading encourages cheating, I would think. Imagine the pressure on people if it's all or nothing, 0 or perfect. You get no credit for learning anything unless you get the answer "exactly right" by the professor's definition of "exactly right"? Yeah, I can see people cheating like mad under such circumstances.
The measure in a class should be, "How well have you learned the lesson intended, as demonstrated by your program?"
The world is going to need more fuel-efficient planes badly. Let's all hope Boeing pulls this off, or most of us will be fuel-priced out of the option of flying.
I've been reading that one of the reasons US bees may be having trouble is a poor diet. Bees need other nutrients in their diet than pure sugar. They get it from pollen and genuine plant nectar. Sugar water doesn't contain these.
A lot of US bees, instead of having a variety of foods available as would be in a wild environment, have just one type of flower to feed upon, like apples, and maybe some corn-syrup-water. Inadequate nutrition results, and CCD is an effect (so the theory goes).
How about we give bees sugar + complete bee nutrient solution?
I sympathize with your problem and I am glad that smoking helps you out. However, is it necessary for you to smoke to obtain nicotine or could you obtain it through a less harmful means than smoking such as a nicotine patch, for example?
I wonder if there is a way you could medicate yourself with fewer risk of downsides such as lung cancer by getting nicotine in some other way.
Alcohol can be produced in the body in some people. Yeast can ferment sugar you eat in your digestive system. Perhaps that's where your.02 came from. Had you eaten any sugar/starch recently?
No, I don't think it's like that at all. Apparently "oxidized ATP" does the same thing as this blue dye, but suffers some drawbacks: a) it must be injected into the damaged site directly b) it has known dangerous side effects.
They were looking for a better alternative, and it seems this blue dye is one they found.
The blue dye they're using doesn't have any known drawbacks and they want to test it to find if there are any problems and if it's really effective.
Does this mean that women are always doomed to earn less than men in the workplace? Or, with more equality for women in the workplace, does this mean that men will begin to be selected for beauty too, or perhaps sense of humor?
The problem with this is this: what if the countermeasures cost "them" far less than the F-22 costs us, or "they" use a military doctrine, such as guerrilla warfare, that makes the F-22's strengths irrelevant?
We could bankrupt ourselves and hand our enemies the victory. Remember: the Germans had by far the best tanks in WW-II, but the Allies produced A LOT MORE tanks. And planes. And ships. And we produced a nuke.
It's not as simple as just having the "best" weapons. You have to maximize your resources overall.
Personally, I think we need unmanned aircraft. Imagine a fighter jet that can pull 50 G's, which would squish a human. Would you want to be in an F-22 vs., say, 10 of those? Would an F-22 even be able to shoot such a thing down?
Are all our electronics similarly safe from disruption/destruction by the microwaves from space? If not, this could be a very serious problem. Imagine if a stray microwave beam wreaks havoc with electronics in stoplight controls, hospitals, etc.? Or lucky souls with pacemakers?
I can see two possible problems with this. Urea is a product of amino acid metabolization, in other words, protein breakdown. Somehow I think it'd take quite a lot of energy to provide the protein to provide the urea.
Second problem, what're the reaction by-products? That wasn't clear in the article. If nitrogen gas is a by-product, that basically reverses the very energy intensive process of fixing nitrogen. We'd be better off using the urea as fertilizer to grow food rather than as fuel.
A few weeks ago I saw a documentary which mentioned the red spot, I think it was one of the 'Naked Science' shows cable. (Geographic channel?)
Anyway, the show aired the proposition that the great spot only persists because it consumes smaller storms, which add energy to it and keep it going.
If you believe that argument, than the red spot will fluctuate in size, shrinking between meals and expanding afterwards, but it's probably going to persist more or less permanently, because Jupiter has so much energy and so many smaller storms to feed the big one.
From the results of the experiment, apparently it won't work as a means to sequester carbon.
However, what if we can use this to improve the productivity of the ocean in general? Might the increased amount of biomass serve to improve fisheries? I.e., if there's more food all the way up the food chain, can't we eat more fish? It's a hungry planet and many fisheries have been depleted....
You are exactly correct. Getting immunizations is not just about protecting yourself, it's about protecting everyone in your community. Babies younger than 3 months cannot be immunized for whooping cough. If they get the disease at that age, chances are good they'll die.
If, however, everyone surrounding that baby is immunized vs. whooping cough and the baby is never exposed, they are safe.
As it turns out, my co-worker's child died from whooping cough. The infant was younger than 3 months and had not been immunized. Apparently the local "herd" wasn't sufficiently immunized, and the child caught the disease.
Moral: if you don't get your shots, you may kill other people's babies.
Please have you and those you're responsible for up to date on immunizations. Please encourage people to get their shots. We don't need more dead babies.
What I'm not sure of is whether this action was taken at Obama's express order, or was taken by one of the civil servants who is still following Bush's policy?
In any case, Obama has barely had any time at all to really take control of the bureaucracy. I imagine a great many things are being done in his name that he would not want done right now, but it takes time to change the direction of a giant machine like the Executive Branch.
Because a key issue of voting is that everyone believe that it is fair.
While cryptographic schemes for voting may be 100% effective, most people are not going to understand how they really work.
Everyone understands collecting clearly marked pieces of paper and counting up the results.
*I* don't really understand cryptographically safe voting and I've read Applied Cryptography. And even if I did *fully* understand the cryptosystem, unless I *personally* audited the code in *all* the voting machines, I would not have 100% faith that the crypto system was working properly!
However, I can have 100% faith in the accuracy of a recount of paper ballots where there's a Democrat and a Republican, looking over the shoulder of a nonpartisan primary counter.
Cryptographic schemes *MAY WORK*, but we should NEVER USE THEM--because most people would never really be sure they were honest.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that's a really negative way to put it. If someone I know starts biking a lot, I think, "wow, good to see you making an effort to improve your health" along with, "thank you for reducing your carbon footprint", not, "you're a drunk loser!"
About the most negative thing I think of when I learn someone I know is switching to biking is, "Gee, watch out for all the idiots in cars who are trying to kill you!"
Physical security and securing your Internetworked computer are actually qualitatively different issues.
Sure, your network security can be circumvented if physical access is easy.
However, ANY criminal ANYWHERE in the world can get at your insecure Internetworked computer. Furthermore, they can often do it in automated fashion with minimal risk!
Physical access, on the other hand, requires that the criminal show up in person. That vastly limits his scope for criminal behavior and vastly increases his risk. Given that, I'm not sure it really makes sense to compare the adequacy of physical security measures to network security measures.
--PeterM
--PeterM
Mod parent "insightful"
If I'd been the TA, I would have given you 98% too despite your misreading of the spec, even without your "fix". Come on, a 0 for getting it 98% right? With a trivial fix?
Overly rigid grading encourages cheating, I would think. Imagine the pressure on people if it's all or nothing, 0 or perfect. You get no credit for learning anything unless you get the answer "exactly right" by the professor's definition of "exactly right"? Yeah, I can see people cheating like mad under such circumstances.
The measure in a class should be, "How well have you learned the lesson intended, as demonstrated by your program?"
The world is going to need more fuel-efficient planes badly. Let's all hope Boeing pulls this off, or most of us will be fuel-priced out of the option of flying.
Hello,
I've been reading that one of the reasons US bees may be having trouble is a poor diet. Bees need other nutrients in their diet than pure sugar. They get it from pollen and genuine plant nectar. Sugar water doesn't contain these.
A lot of US bees, instead of having a variety of foods available as would be in a wild environment, have just one type of flower to feed upon, like apples, and maybe some corn-syrup-water. Inadequate nutrition results, and CCD is an effect (so the theory goes).
How about we give bees sugar + complete bee nutrient solution?
--PM
How about miles per pound of carbon dioxide emission?
Or, or in addition, miles per PRIMARY unit of energy input?
--PM
Sir,
I sympathize with your problem and I am glad that smoking helps you out. However, is it necessary for you to smoke to obtain nicotine or could you obtain it through a less harmful means than smoking such as a nicotine patch, for example?
I wonder if there is a way you could medicate yourself with fewer risk of downsides such as lung cancer by getting nicotine in some other way.
Regards,
--PeterM
Alcohol can be produced in the body in some people. Yeast can ferment sugar you eat in your digestive system. .02 came from. Had you eaten any sugar/starch recently?
Perhaps that's where your
--PM
No, I don't think it's like that at all. Apparently "oxidized ATP" does the same thing as this blue dye, but suffers some drawbacks:
a) it must be injected into the damaged site directly
b) it has known dangerous side effects.
They were looking for a better alternative, and it seems this blue dye is one they found.
The blue dye they're using doesn't have any known drawbacks and they want to test it to find if there are any problems and if it's really effective.
--PM
Does this mean that women are always doomed to earn less than men in the workplace? Or, with more equality for women in the workplace, does this mean that men will begin to be selected for beauty too, or perhaps sense of humor?
--PM
The problem with this is this: what if the countermeasures cost "them" far less than the F-22 costs us, or "they" use a military doctrine, such as guerrilla warfare, that makes the F-22's strengths irrelevant?
We could bankrupt ourselves and hand our enemies the victory. Remember: the Germans had by far the best tanks in WW-II, but the Allies produced A LOT MORE tanks. And planes. And ships. And we produced a nuke.
It's not as simple as just having the "best" weapons. You have to maximize your resources overall.
Personally, I think we need unmanned aircraft. Imagine a fighter jet that can pull 50 G's, which would squish a human. Would you want to be in an F-22 vs., say, 10 of those? Would an F-22 even be able to shoot such a thing down?
--PM
I read somewhere else that NASA had a tape shortage at some point, so they recycled the moon landing tapes to store other data.
I wonder if advanced data recovery techniques could recover the previously written data well enough to be useful.
--PM
Are all our electronics similarly safe from disruption/destruction by the microwaves from space? If not, this could be a very serious problem. Imagine if a stray microwave beam wreaks havoc with electronics in stoplight controls, hospitals, etc.? Or lucky souls with pacemakers?
--PeterM
"I got better!"
Monty Python quote. Seemed germane.
I can see two possible problems with this. Urea is a product of amino acid metabolization, in other words, protein breakdown. Somehow I think it'd take quite a lot of energy to provide the protein to provide the urea.
Second problem, what're the reaction by-products? That wasn't clear in the article. If nitrogen gas is a by-product, that basically reverses the very energy intensive process of fixing nitrogen. We'd be better off using the urea as fertilizer to grow food rather than as fuel.
--PM
The parent is correct. I have verified this via
https://cryptolux.org/FAQ_on_the_attacks
Per that FAQ, AES-128 is in fact stonger.
PLEASE MOD PARENT UP!!
--PeterM
Reaching adulthood and then preserving the body of a 20-year-old forever is one thing. This is quite something else.
It is not so much failure to age, as failure to grow/mature. It remains to be seen whether her abnormality will grant longer life span in practice.
A few weeks ago I saw a documentary which mentioned the red spot, I think it was one of the 'Naked Science' shows cable. (Geographic channel?)
Anyway, the show aired the proposition that the great spot only persists because it consumes smaller storms, which add energy to it and keep it going.
If you believe that argument, than the red spot will fluctuate in size, shrinking between meals and expanding afterwards, but it's probably going to persist more or less permanently, because Jupiter has so much energy and so many smaller storms to feed the big one.
From the results of the experiment, apparently it won't work as a means to sequester carbon.
However, what if we can use this to improve the productivity of the ocean in general? Might the increased amount of biomass serve to improve fisheries? I.e., if there's more food all the way up the food chain, can't we eat more fish? It's a hungry planet and many fisheries have been depleted....
--PeterM
Hello,
You are exactly correct. Getting immunizations is not just about protecting yourself, it's about protecting everyone in your community. Babies younger than 3 months cannot be immunized for whooping cough. If they get the disease at that age, chances are good they'll die.
If, however, everyone surrounding that baby is immunized vs. whooping cough and the baby is never exposed, they are safe.
As it turns out, my co-worker's child died from whooping cough. The infant was younger than 3 months and had not been immunized. Apparently the local "herd" wasn't sufficiently immunized, and the child caught the disease.
Moral: if you don't get your shots, you may kill other people's babies.
Please have you and those you're responsible for up to date on immunizations. Please encourage people to get their shots. We don't need more dead babies.
--PeterM
Most suburbs WILL be covered by ocean soon, if Greenland and Antarctica's ice melts significantly. Imagine a world where most people are refugees.
Did you check to see if her computer was already compromised? Certain unpatched OS's can be hacked within 15 minutes if the computers are on the net.
What I'm not sure of is whether this action was taken at Obama's express order, or was taken by one of the civil servants who is still following Bush's policy?
In any case, Obama has barely had any time at all to really take control of the bureaucracy. I imagine a great many things are being done in his name that he would not want done right now, but it takes time to change the direction of a giant machine like the Executive Branch.
--PM
Because a key issue of voting is that everyone believe that it is fair.
While cryptographic schemes for voting may be 100% effective, most people are not going to understand how they really work.
Everyone understands collecting clearly marked pieces of paper and counting up the results.
*I* don't really understand cryptographically safe voting and I've read Applied Cryptography. And even if I did *fully* understand the cryptosystem, unless I *personally* audited the code in *all* the voting machines, I would not have 100% faith that the crypto system was working properly!
However, I can have 100% faith in the accuracy of a recount of paper ballots where there's a Democrat and a Republican, looking over the shoulder of a nonpartisan primary counter.
Cryptographic schemes *MAY WORK*, but we should NEVER USE THEM--because most people would never really be sure they were honest.
--PeterM