I refuse to believe that the only options are to "drop off the grid" or to surrender my privacy absolutely. I have seen nothing that says that modern life has place the sort of demands that have in fact been placed upon our personal data and life habits. Just because this is the way it is, does not mean this is the way it should be.
And I for one am grateful for the people who are trying to deflect the steam engine before it runs right off the rails.
... of the open source paradigm. Will "many eyeballs" lead to a supervirus in an absurdly short time span? Or will it lead to the rapid evolution of anti-viral software?
Either way Microsoft will offer this as proof that those Open Source guys are all evil.
Put a sufficiently heavy mass (like an asteroid) in geosync around the equator
Well, actually, a little further out than GEO, so that the center of mass is at GEO.
As for wind -- well, you situate it where the wind is minimal. Remember, since it's synched, it's not generating "wind" by slicing through the air. All you'd have to worry about is the wind that is actually blowing past the (stationary) Earth.
The rule probably refers to the fact that the rope has to support its own weight in addition to the mass you're hanging. The longer the rope, the more of its own weight has to be supported.
But don't worry -- the engineers looking into the starbridge know about this effect and include it. That's how they get estimates of the required tensile strength.
of a growing problem I see in my classes: People unable or unwilling to do either of the following:
a) Edit and trim for relevance the things they find on the Net
b) Cite sources! In my class this post would lead to an honor code hearing. And they didn't even take out the "Click here for more information..."
OK, realistically, this is just slashdot and not a formal journal. But it is illuminative. Believe it or not I've seen actual papers submitted for real grades that still had the "Click here" parts intact!
usually the first time I hear of a new exploit is when automatic update prompts me to download and isntall it.
Your choice of antecedent and pronoun seems to be "exploit" and "it". Are you saying that Microsoft has decided to skip the middleman and just start sending exploits directely to the end user? Isn't there any market they won't subvert?:)
Hence, a virus could easily be ported to all platforms with relative ease, and since all platforms have the same basic structure ( having a binary folder, system folder, and an admin) it would relatively easy for a hacker to take the foundation of any operating system and devastate it.
Yes. Also, since computers are made of elements commonly occurring on Earth and you are made of elements commonly occurring, it would be relatively easy for a hacker to make the virus affect you! *cue ominous music*
OK, I'm being flippant. But I don't see where the idea that modern OSs share things like the idea of a filesystem renders them easily cross-vulnerable. Although, I suppose, it would offer some justification for that lame virus ending of Independence Day...
Then there's that pesky first amendment thing that MS has to get around.
Um, no, there isn't. The First Amendment (and capitalize that when you say it, son -- it's the most important political writing of the past three centuries) restricts the government, not private citizens (or corporations). Microsoft doesn't own the country.
2. If linux was popular boxes would come from every major mfg as desktop systems.. thousands of systems on the internet with default passwords the home user would never change.
Why in heaven's name does any OS have a "default password" anymore? Why not refuse to proceed until the user types an actual password? For that matter, why not have the installer generate a random password and give that to the user, forcing him/her to change it later?
With the browser battle long since won, there's nothing forcing Microsoft to do much of anything about improving the functionality of Internet Explorer ... No wonder so many people are jumping ship for Mozilla Firefox and Opera.
Well, the editors of a world-class newspaper see it differently, so at least there's room for doubt. I don't understand the hostility: If you don't like it, don't read it. On the other hand, it's something I didn't know, something that has (allegorical) meaning in the race, and it relates to tech. I think that brings it under the banner of "News for Nerds".
What's the reasoning here? "Kerry's webserver runs teh linux, so if he wins he will destroy MS and the world will be happy and live as one with no more wars or fighting."
It's a metaphor, son. One side in this race believes in unquestioned authority, tight control, sacrosanct wealth, and operation through secrets. Care to guess which? Hint: It runs as deep as the software they choose.
Is this the sort of thing that makes a person vote one way or another? No, but it's all part of the gestalt.
Interestingly, the converse is true: Too little funding does prevent good work.
In principle you're right: throwing money at something doesn't guarantee success. But in the technical fields, throwing money does up the odds. And while there might be a point when NASA is getting so much funding that its productivity suffers as a result, no rational oberserver could state we're at or even near that point.
I guess the Chinese Government doesn't want that sort of thing happening in Shanghai or Beijing, and turning their back on the rest of the world may look like a good way to maintain the status quo.
Well, they've done it before. Remember that the Portugese sailing east bumped into Chinese traders working their way westward... then the emperor died and the fleets were burned.
To steal a line from Minority Report, "The fact that you prevented it from happening doesnt change the fact that it was *going* to happen." (All hail the IMdb)
That makes a much sense as the UN calling my 12 guage double-barrel Remington (shop smart, shop s-mart) a WMD.
Don't be silly. Your shotgun fires shells that kill people, yes, but you cannot wipe out a city's worth of people in a microsecond using it -- and certainly not by using one shell. An ICBM carries nuclear warheads, for Pete's sake, and those can kill tens of thousands at once.
Let's keep things in perspective, OK? And Moore isn't wrong, strictly speaking: The Titan rocket was designed to carry a nuclear warhead and the ones manufactured by Lockheed still, hypothetically could.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, the term went generic and they lost that trademark. It's like "kleenex" and "xerox".
(More sadly, perhaps this isn't so far from the truth.)
I refuse to believe that the only options are to "drop off the grid" or to surrender my privacy absolutely. I have seen nothing that says that modern life has place the sort of demands that have in fact been placed upon our personal data and life habits. Just because this is the way it is, does not mean this is the way it should be.
And I for one am grateful for the people who are trying to deflect the steam engine before it runs right off the rails.
... of the open source paradigm. Will "many eyeballs" lead to a supervirus in an absurdly short time span? Or will it lead to the rapid evolution of anti-viral software?
Either way Microsoft will offer this as proof that those Open Source guys are all evil.
Well, actually, a little further out than GEO, so that the center of mass is at GEO.
As for wind -- well, you situate it where the wind is minimal. Remember, since it's synched, it's not generating "wind" by slicing through the air. All you'd have to worry about is the wind that is actually blowing past the (stationary) Earth.
The rule probably refers to the fact that the rope has to support its own weight in addition to the mass you're hanging. The longer the rope, the more of its own weight has to be supported.
But don't worry -- the engineers looking into the starbridge know about this effect and include it. That's how they get estimates of the required tensile strength.
Well, I skimmed it. Maybe it's just because I'm a teacher and have seen this too many times, but actually, those words do jump out at me.
a) Edit and trim for relevance the things they find on the Net
b) Cite sources ! In my class this post would lead to an honor code hearing. And they didn't even take out the "Click here for more information..."
OK, realistically, this is just slashdot and not a formal journal. But it is illuminative. Believe it or not I've seen actual papers submitted for real grades that still had the "Click here" parts intact!
Your choice of antecedent and pronoun seems to be "exploit" and "it". Are you saying that Microsoft has decided to skip the middleman and just start sending exploits directely to the end user? Isn't there any market they won't subvert?
Yes. Also, since computers are made of elements commonly occurring on Earth and you are made of elements commonly occurring, it would be relatively easy for a hacker to make the virus affect you! *cue ominous music*
OK, I'm being flippant. But I don't see where the idea that modern OSs share things like the idea of a filesystem renders them easily cross-vulnerable. Although, I suppose, it would offer some justification for that lame virus ending of Independence Day...
Or, perhaps, they rounded the percentages before publication.
22/46 = 0.47826 --: 48%
21/46 = 0.456527 --: 46%
Um, no, there isn't. The First Amendment (and capitalize that when you say it, son -- it's the most important political writing of the past three centuries) restricts the government, not private citizens (or corporations). Microsoft doesn't own the country.
Not yet, anyway.
Why in heaven's name does any OS have a "default password" anymore? Why not refuse to proceed until the user types an actual password? For that matter, why not have the installer generate a random password and give that to the user, forcing him/her to change it later?
Indeed. In fact, it's a site where the rest of the Net is trawled and links to news stories are posted.
Well, the editors of a world-class newspaper see it differently, so at least there's room for doubt. I don't understand the hostility: If you don't like it, don't read it. On the other hand, it's something I didn't know, something that has (allegorical) meaning in the race, and it relates to tech. I think that brings it under the banner of "News for Nerds".
It's a metaphor, son. One side in this race believes in unquestioned authority, tight control, sacrosanct wealth, and operation through secrets. Care to guess which? Hint: It runs as deep as the software they choose.
Is this the sort of thing that makes a person vote one way or another? No, but it's all part of the gestalt.
D'oh! I had this thought nagging me before I pressed Submit but I went ahead anyway.
statment: p -> q
converse: q -> p
inverse: ~p -> ~q
contrapositive: ~q -> ~p
Clearly I should have used "inverse". Now my Symbolic Logic prof is going to be disappointed in me...
Hello? Rings? A good deal more spectacular than Jupiter, in my opinion.
Interestingly, the converse is true: Too little funding does prevent good work.
In principle you're right: throwing money at something doesn't guarantee success. But in the technical fields, throwing money does up the odds. And while there might be a point when NASA is getting so much funding that its productivity suffers as a result, no rational oberserver could state we're at or even near that point.
Excellent neologism!
Doesn't this just feed the stereotype of the typical geek, unaware of the opposite sex?
Well, they've done it before. Remember that the Portugese sailing east bumped into Chinese traders working their way westward
To steal a line from Minority Report, "The fact that you prevented it from happening doesnt change the fact that it was *going* to happen." (All hail the IMdb)
Yep, it's psychohistory all over again... *shaking fist* Curse you, Isaac Asimov!
Don't be silly. Your shotgun fires shells that kill people, yes, but you cannot wipe out a city's worth of people in a microsecond using it -- and certainly not by using one shell. An ICBM carries nuclear warheads, for Pete's sake, and those can kill tens of thousands at once.
Let's keep things in perspective, OK? And Moore isn't wrong, strictly speaking: The Titan rocket was designed to carry a nuclear warhead and the ones manufactured by Lockheed still, hypothetically could.