Even if there are less exploitable bugs or features in Linux, there's a fixed population size of 'sick in the head' people willing to exploit them at any one time. At the moment, most of them are addressing Windows because it's a bigger 'market', but if Linux grows that will change. Therefore if there are any bugs in a Linux system, then Linux will still end up just as subverted.
And trouble is, last time I checked, there were certainly bugs in Linux based systems; software engineers, even open source ones, do tend to make mistakes.
b) wearing dresses (inspite of a long tradition of straight and gay British comedians dressing in drag he actually is a transvestite- and no apparently he's not gay, he's just a tranny).
c) telling the least offensive jokes you've ever heard (you've heard the saying- 'comedy is always cruel'?- wrong!)
I suspect you would still be able to send email through the smtp server of your cable provider. That way your cable provider can put filters in to trap any customer's spam mail.
Actually, strangely enough, the latest versions of Java tend to roughly the same thing- they load the Java VM once when you run the first program, and then the next Java program loads and runs quickly.
Except that's wrong. Running Hello World involves booting up what is, in effect, an entire operating system (the Java VM, with virtual memory, threading, everything, the works).
Ok, here's an experiment:
a) run Hello World in Java
b) run Hello World in C (including booting up Linux)
Basically MS lack the perfectionist drive. I'm not making either of these points to knock MS as a company - they're very succesful at what they do and make a ton of cash.
You're slightly wrong here. They have the perfectionist drive in spades. It's just that they are trying to perfect making money, not perfect making product.
It's just trying to get the street cred it craves.
It's important to make sure it doesn't get it. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to make sure it doesn't. This message will self-destruct in 15 months.
I remember thinking I was all smart by drilling it into a friend of mine's head
You trepanned your friend?
that it was impossible to have one of those.
Yeah you find it impossible to have friends, what a surprise.
Man I hope he doesn't find my email address.
Well I for one am giving it to him if he asks, and I'm mailing Cowboy Neal to get him to release full details on you, you psychopath. Mind you, after drilling into his brain like that, he probably doesn't even know what day it is.
Remember, HTTP and email are two entirely different things.
Yeah, but they aren't entirely different; that's part of the point. Verisign have dorked around with DNS, and both HTTP and SMTP both use DNS. In fact, because they've fiddled DNS; SMTP and every other internet service has also been potentially screwed around with; HTTP essentially works, and sure they've patched SMTP, but all other services may very well not work correctly any more depending on exactly how they are coded.
Yeah, well a lot of mail software relies on that, and one of the worst things about this is that Verisign is actually receiving a lot of mail that wasn't for them in the first place; they get to read, analyse and keep and it never, ever arrives where it was intended and doesn't bounce either.
I'm going to pull a number out of my ass and say that reaching LEO is 100x harder than a quick sub-orbital flight to the 'edge of space' despite only needing 5x more delta-v.
I don't agree that it's one hundred times harder.
The rocket equation suggest it's about ten times harder or anyway ten times as much fuel; but that probably very much overstates it- just because you need ten times as much fuel doesn't make it ten times harder; by the time you are returning from space safely you already have most of the systems well sorted, and it's mostly just a question of scaling things up.
Historically, I don't think that the suborbital to orbital jump is anything like 100x as much money or 100x as much effort; a few times at most.
The real problems will start at 50000 feet up when SS1 is dropped from the WK and ignites it's engine.
No, not really, it's a hybrid engine he's chosen. They're generally reckoned to be much simpler and far safer than the solid rockets that the Shuttle uses; even amateurs fairly regularly build them, and with generally good results. Provided he can keep it pointing in the right direction he should be fine.
Actually, the budget that NASA has today isn't massively less than it used to have back in its prime. No more than a factor of 2.
There's a google article that calculates the inflation adjusted budget.
Now, the national budget has grown over the years, and NASAs budget hasn't; but quite frankly if they could get to the moon in 10 years, they've had 30 years and not done anything even vaguely similar since then and with about half the yearly budget.
A plug nozzle is a tapering nozzle; ideally tapering down to infinity, you always chop it off short for obvious reasons.
An aerospike nozzle is a plug nozzle but it gets its name because you're supposed to inject gas in the base to provide extra pressure - that gas is the 'air' spike. And the main advantages come about because you dynamically adjust the pressure of the base dependent on the vehicle speed to optimise the shape of the aerospike and give maximum possible thrust. (Basically the air spike pushes on the exhaust gases which in turn push on the ambient air, the result is that the nozzle can compensate for the atmospheric pressure changes over the flight envelope better than a conventional 'bell nozzle').
Now this nozzle had no base gas injection, so is in fact just a plug nozzle. Plug nozzles aren't bad, but aren't necessarily anything like as good as an aerospike.
But who gets to decide what's the simplest theory?
I don't think that matters as much; provided the people who are checking your reasons are logical, they broadly should come to equivalent conclusions.
It all depends on your general world view.
I think you need to include your world view in with the assumptions.
Note, that strictly, Ockhams razor does not determine truth. It merely identifies the theory that is least arguable given the evidence.
For example, if you apply Ockhams razor to religion- it usually cuts away 'God' (basically God is some ultrapowerful, all knowing being that can do practically anything- you rapidly get into problems that you can't predict such a being, and Ockhams razor cuts him/her/it away in favour of, say, pure physics with no God.)
However, that does not prove that there is no God! It just says that the formalism that is Ockhams razor does not support that religious idea with the current evidence. As another example, if you read the formal rules of ping/pong, you probably find no God there either. There's no God in the rules of chess. These are all things that people do, even religious people. That does not make them atheists, since there is a distinction between what people do and what they believe. Essentially, Ockhams razor is an essential component in practical logic- and logic does not allow you to prove the existence of God. That's what faith is for.
Ockhams razor is needed because otherwise, for example, you would have to try to prove that the moon isn't pushed around by invisible, intangible faeries- it's not possible to do that. Using Ockhams razor puts the onus on the proposer of the theory to show that it is simpler than the idea that the moon is falling towards the earth all the time.
So basically you're saying that out of all the simple explanations, you still pick the one that appeals to you
No; I repeat, I pick the simplest one. Only if there are several, equally simple theories do I get to pick and choose. And even then it's usually a good idea to experimentally test wherever possible. (And if it isn't possible- that's usually a good sign you've got a rubbishy theory.)
Slashdot Mirror
Even if there are less exploitable bugs or features in Linux, there's a fixed population size of 'sick in the head' people willing to exploit them at any one time. At the moment, most of them are addressing Windows because it's a bigger 'market', but if Linux grows that will change. Therefore if there are any bugs in a Linux system, then Linux will still end up just as subverted.
And trouble is, last time I checked, there were certainly bugs in Linux based systems; software engineers, even open source ones, do tend to make mistakes.
a) being very funny (YMMV of course)
b) wearing dresses (inspite of a long tradition of straight and gay British comedians dressing in drag he actually is a transvestite- and no apparently he's not gay, he's just a tranny).
c) telling the least offensive jokes you've ever heard (you've heard the saying- 'comedy is always cruel'?- wrong!)
I suspect you would still be able to send email through the smtp server of your cable provider. That way your cable provider can put filters in to trap any customer's spam mail.
Borrow the books and scan them and take them right back. They can't RFID a jpeg in my laptop.
No, since an Apple II can't load the program itself that fast.
And you are on-topic how exactly?
Actually, strangely enough, the latest versions of Java tend to roughly the same thing- they load the Java VM once when you run the first program, and then the next Java program loads and runs quickly.
Ok, here's an experiment:
a) run Hello World in Java
b) run Hello World in C (including booting up Linux)
Which one is faster? :-)
You're slightly wrong here. They have the perfectionist drive in spades. It's just that they are trying to perfect making money, not perfect making product.
It's just trying to get the street cred it craves.
It's important to make sure it doesn't get it. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to make sure it doesn't. This message will self-destruct in 15 months.
You trepanned your friend?
that it was impossible to have one of those.
Yeah you find it impossible to have friends, what a surprise.
Man I hope he doesn't find my email address.
Well I for one am giving it to him if he asks, and I'm mailing Cowboy Neal to get him to release full details on you, you psychopath. Mind you, after drilling into his brain like that, he probably doesn't even know what day it is.
Yeah, but they aren't entirely different; that's part of the point. Verisign have dorked around with DNS, and both HTTP and SMTP both use DNS. In fact, because they've fiddled DNS; SMTP and every other internet service has also been potentially screwed around with; HTTP essentially works, and sure they've patched SMTP, but all other services may very well not work correctly any more depending on exactly how they are coded.
Yeah, well a lot of mail software relies on that, and one of the worst things about this is that Verisign is actually receiving a lot of mail that wasn't for them in the first place; they get to read, analyse and keep and it never, ever arrives where it was intended and doesn't bounce either.
Neither. Rather, think of it like two gangs fighting over territory, in this case, control of DNS.
Yeah, I've got to stop doing that too!
I should give up after 3/4 of an hour at the most.
I don't agree that it's one hundred times harder.
The rocket equation suggest it's about ten times harder or anyway ten times as much fuel; but that probably very much overstates it- just because you need ten times as much fuel doesn't make it ten times harder; by the time you are returning from space safely you already have most of the systems well sorted, and it's mostly just a question of scaling things up.
Historically, I don't think that the suborbital to orbital jump is anything like 100x as much money or 100x as much effort; a few times at most.
Delta V for a suborbital flight like that is about 2km/s compared to around 10km/s for an orbital flight; so it's about a factor of 5x less delta-v.
No, not really, it's a hybrid engine he's chosen. They're generally reckoned to be much simpler and far safer than the solid rockets that the Shuttle uses; even amateurs fairly regularly build them, and with generally good results. Provided he can keep it pointing in the right direction he should be fine.
On the other hand, there's almost no way you can be caught. Nice one! :-)
There's a google article that calculates the inflation adjusted budget.
Now, the national budget has grown over the years, and NASAs budget hasn't; but quite frankly if they could get to the moon in 10 years, they've had 30 years and not done anything even vaguely similar since then and with about half the yearly budget.
Actually, no big mystery, it has enormous solar panels 10s of meters long.
A plug nozzle is a tapering nozzle; ideally tapering down to infinity, you always chop it off short for obvious reasons.
An aerospike nozzle is a plug nozzle but it gets its name because you're supposed to inject gas in the base to provide extra pressure - that gas is the 'air' spike. And the main advantages come about because you dynamically adjust the pressure of the base dependent on the vehicle speed to optimise the shape of the aerospike and give maximum possible thrust. (Basically the air spike pushes on the exhaust gases which in turn push on the ambient air, the result is that the nozzle can compensate for the atmospheric pressure changes over the flight envelope better than a conventional 'bell nozzle').
Now this nozzle had no base gas injection, so is in fact just a plug nozzle. Plug nozzles aren't bad, but aren't necessarily anything like as good as an aerospike.
It went to sleep on the aerial huh?
I don't think that matters as much; provided the people who are checking your reasons are logical, they broadly should come to equivalent conclusions.
It all depends on your general world view.
I think you need to include your world view in with the assumptions.
Note, that strictly, Ockhams razor does not determine truth. It merely identifies the theory that is least arguable given the evidence.
For example, if you apply Ockhams razor to religion- it usually cuts away 'God' (basically God is some ultrapowerful, all knowing being that can do practically anything- you rapidly get into problems that you can't predict such a being, and Ockhams razor cuts him/her/it away in favour of, say, pure physics with no God.)
However, that does not prove that there is no God! It just says that the formalism that is Ockhams razor does not support that religious idea with the current evidence. As another example, if you read the formal rules of ping/pong, you probably find no God there either. There's no God in the rules of chess. These are all things that people do, even religious people. That does not make them atheists, since there is a distinction between what people do and what they believe. Essentially, Ockhams razor is an essential component in practical logic- and logic does not allow you to prove the existence of God. That's what faith is for.
Ockhams razor is needed because otherwise, for example, you would have to try to prove that the moon isn't pushed around by invisible, intangible faeries- it's not possible to do that. Using Ockhams razor puts the onus on the proposer of the theory to show that it is simpler than the idea that the moon is falling towards the earth all the time.
No; I repeat, I pick the simplest one. Only if there are several, equally simple theories do I get to pick and choose. And even then it's usually a good idea to experimentally test wherever possible. (And if it isn't possible- that's usually a good sign you've got a rubbishy theory.)