The net effect? Surface area is irrelevant. Am I missing something? Is this explanation just way too simple? What's the catch?
The catch is that it's not true. The best example to disprove your hypothesis is car tires. If surface area were irrelevant it would not matter whether you had narrow or wide tires. A 1 inch wide tire and a 15 inch wide tire of the same material would acheive the same friction (and therefore acceleration/deceleration/turning power). This is obviously not true. There are definitely other factors involved, but I think it's clear that surface area has a significant effect.
Those infected with Code Red would NOT be violating this law. The proposed law specifically says "knowingly" and "with intent" in several places, so if something happened without your knowledge or malicious intent, you wouldn't be a felon.
(a) Whoever -
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer...
(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud...
(5) (A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program...
(7) with intent to extort...
Firstly, I can't believe how charitably you view the post's "error". You are really going out of your way to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Question 1: What are you currently working on?
Question 2: If backdoor-free encryption is outlawed, do you promise to create for us a kick-ass, (virtually) unbreakable version of the spammimic and distribute it through the/. subversive underground?
It's already possible to get by without ever touching cash. Choose your example, there are plenty, including the
DotComGuy
experiment/media stunt/whatever.
The distinction the questioner fails to make is between it being *possible* to go cashless and *everyone* acutally doing it. There is a huge difference.
It seems obvious that cash gives you lots of options that other, more virtual, currencies do not. Most notably anonimity and freedom from scrutiny (plus it still works when the power is out). Why on earth would everyone suddenly choose to give up those options?
Something along the lines of: "No corporation may violate any rights which the government is not allowed to violate."
The whole point of contracts is to get you to agree to do something you wouldn't otherwise be bound to do. For example, the gov't can't tell me not to go to work for company X. But when company Y hires me they want me to sign a non-compete agreeing not to go to work for company X. That is, giving up my *right* to work for company X. All contracts are about giving up some rights in exchange for something.
(Naturally, IM ANAL, no, wait, that's not what I meant...)
WrinkledShirt reviewing a book from No Starch Press?
Come on now. Not that it's not a good book, it may be, but let's have reviewers without a vested interest, so as not to give the "impression of impropriety", or should I say the "impression of using a/. book review to shamelessly promote your product."
Please.
Rolling over, turning the other cheek, taking the pacifist approach, whatever you call it, does not solve anything either. I don't want rash, ill considered retaliation, but there is a lot to be said for sticking up for ourselves, establishing a record of punishing wrong-doers, creating a deterrent. And for eliminating those who we judge to be likely to commit unacceptable acts in the future. Like Bin Laden for example. Whether he did this or not, he's clearly an accomplished terrorist with no intention of stopping, who is targeting the US, and making threats. We should blast him to pigeon bait.
Can see it billowing smoke from the office
windows. We heard a second large explosion around 10:30. Don't know what it was yet.
One guy here was outside when the plane hit
the Pentagon, he heard the plane's engine, saw
the fireball. We had debris coming down in the
courtyard here from the explosion. Have a couple
people from the company over at the Pentagon, but
everyone's accounted for now.
There's been much discussion here, and there is a wealth of info on the CPT site, regarding patents. Some seemingly obvious, some so vague that they include nearly everything, some claiming "invention" of a on-line version of a long-standing business practice, etc. And it appears that the only way any of these patents can be revoked is through court action.
My question is, what level of success has there been in fighting these patents? Who has expended the effort and funds to take a shot at them? Who has succeeded, who's failed, and what's the outlook for the future?
What do you see as the current biggest technological threat to personal freedoms and rights?
And what most threatens the usefulness of the internet and related technologies for the general public?
You could be nice, but on the *other* hand...
on
Software Aesthetics
·
· Score: 1
You could follow this
Guide to Writing Unmaintainable Code.
If we put this article in close proximity to Mr. Connell's, in a searing flash of heat and light they would negate each other in a matter/anti-matter like reaction.
Longevity *can* be an issue. There is a shocking amount of code still in use from the 1970's, mostly Fortran and Cobol. I have personally had the misfortune of having to update code last modified in 1977. I know it's hard to believe, but there is a ton of it out there.
A programmer needs to realize that when he/she creates a program it becomes a living thing that
may be around for a long time, may be handled by many people, and may be used for things the original programmer never imagined. Good programmers who keep this in mind make the process easier for everyone.
Swap him for a legal analyst.
on
Seanbaby.com
·
· Score: 1
Well said.
What would be great is if we could swap Katz for a legal analyst. The sheer volume of IANAL posts
and their corresponding topics show how much we could use some accurate insight into DMCA, Patent law, privacy, etc. I think keeping up with all
ongoing cases and sharing the implications with the/. community could be a full time job.
While I'm at that sporting event I'd rather be rained on than suddenly splattered by a deluge
of little pieces of gel.
They say it disolves in salt water, but there's not likely to be much salt water at your average stadium, so the stuff might be around for a while.
And what would a "gelstorm" do to the traction on a football field or racetrack?
The primary use, over the ocean, sounds interesting, but frankly I think the mention of killing clouds over sporting events is just a little sensationalism to raise hype.
I did a fun little demo once.
I was working for a certain government agency, building a
website to make a whole lotta data accessible via interactive
queries on the web.
The data was in an Oracle DB, and we had a few
Oracle contractor DBAs. The brass decided to send me to do a demo,
so I travelled across a few states, got up in front of several
hundred people, and showed them how every time you submit a
query the whole thing would just hang. Turned out the DBAs
picked that day to take the DB down for maintenance. No one
told them I was doing a demo.
Sigh. Ahhhh, those were the days...
The so-called scientists that say we are causing global warming are either a) crappy, underinformed scientists, or b) using false statements to futher an agenda.
One problematic assumption these folks make
(but do not state, as it would discredit their other claims)
is that the earth should and would naturally stay the same as it is right now. While some of the general public may swallow this if they don't think about it too much, it is obviously false. There is plenty of evidence that long before we had an impact on the earth it went in and out of ice ages and had huge temperature fluctuations.
Global weather is a chaos system. You can't predict the behavior of a chaos system. It changes all the time, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, of its own accord. That's why
it is chaotic.
You can effect a chaos system, though, so one could make a valid argument that we MAY be effecting the global weather and therefore should
reduce our emmissions, etc. But we can never KNOW for sure whether or how we effect the weather system.
I think some scientists may grasp this, but continue to use scare tactics and misleading information to try to get people to clean up
and reduce our impact on the environment.
Which is a reasonable goal, but an unacceptable
means of promoting it.
There is an excellent
book on Chaos
by James Gleick. It does a good job of presenting the basic ideas of chaos in a non-mathematical, comprehensible way.
"It won't be long before we (individually) can all be sued into a state of indenture for violating patents.."
on our genes, which are being issued right now.
How many (thousands of) patents are going through right now on gene sequences that *you* are currently using in your own genetic code? Bad lifeform!! Stop using that gene!
This is my favorite part of the press release:
"AltaVista, majority owned by CMGI Inc. (Nasdaq: CMGI), is the leading search service and information market place for Internet users and businesses"
Ha ha! I'm picturing a boardroom full of marketing guys talking each other into believing that one.
I think M$ is building up linux on purpose so it will look like there is legitimate competition out there, showing that they are not a monopoly.
Of course, they want the minimum competition that will keep the trustbusters off their backs. And
sadly Linux is perfect for this as it is much discussed, much hyped, but unlikely to significantly eat into their desktop market any time soon.
Ebay is a TRUSTe Licensee, which means they
have to conform to a bunch of privacy policy
requirements. Send your complaints to
TRUSTe and try to get their TRUSTe privileges
revoked.
I think you're onto it with "implied consent".
In a computer class, where one of the topics may
very well be computer security, setting up a
machine and then testing its security systems is
perfectly reasonable, and I would guess (hope), perfectly legal. If that kind of situation is
legal, and the teacher invited the class to try
it out, in a comp sci class, the kid's in the clear.
This thing about expecting the kids to realize the teacher was being facetious is total bull. It is the teacher's job to be clear. If the students misunderstood him it's his own damn fault.
The best approach is to start from the beginning. And by that I mean
learn about computers and computer science in a chronological order.
Every idea, technology, and algorithm that has been created, invented, or
developed came about for a reason and in an environment and context which
is essential to understanding the thing itself.
In computer science, much like math, each concept is built upon the preceding
concepts. It is difficult, sometimes impossible, to fully understand one concept
if you are missing even one of the many concepts upon which it is founded.
So start before computers. Learn about the people who imagined such things,
Turing, mechanical adding machines. Learn about the need for better adding machines.
Learn about the switches and electronics that existed at that time.
Then study the first computers, and the people who created them. Which ideas
failed, which succeeded? What codes did they use to run their machines?
What practical uses were those machines put to?
The people who ran those machines needed easier ways to run them, and to create
programs, so they built tools for themselves, OS's, programming languages.
You can study how each of these developed, which ones made it and which didn't,
and how the former evolved.
Then transistors came along. Get into how the transistor was created, and how
it revolutionized computers.
You get the idea.
A historical approach is the only way to get a real understanding of the field,
and it provides a multitude of technical topics and exercises. The student could
think through each of the problems that the creators of these technologies faced,
and compare their own results with those of their predecessors.
What you end up with is not only an understanding of what we have now, but of
how we got here, how these things developed, what their original purpose was,
and how they evolved.
Don't know if it's because of this thread (the timing seems suspicious), but ten/. typo domains are on sale on ebay for $50. ($50 for all of them, that is.)
Obviously/. should buy them up. It would be foolish not to.
The folks at Census know that public confidence in the confidentiality
of the data collected is *essential* to collecting *any* worthwhile data.
They have fought valiantly to maintain that trust. But if congress passes
a law requiring it there's not much they can do, so raise a stink and talk
to your congressperson.
Or on congresses 'code' page:
http://uscode.house.gov/title_13.htm
Here's the meat: (a) Neither the Secretary, nor any other officer or employee of
the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, or local
government census liaison, may, except as provided in section 8 or
16 or chapter 10 of this title or section 210 of the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1998 or section 2(f) of the Census of
Agriculture Act of 1997 -
(1) use the information furnished under the provisions of this
title for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for
which it is supplied; or
(2) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any
particular establishment or individual under this title can be
identified; or
(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees
of the Department or bureau or agency thereof to examine the
individual reports.
Slashdot Mirror
The net effect? Surface area is irrelevant. Am I missing something? Is this explanation just way too simple? What's the catch?
The catch is that it's not true. The best example to disprove your hypothesis is car tires. If surface area were irrelevant it would not matter whether you had narrow or wide tires. A 1 inch wide tire and a 15 inch wide tire of the same material would acheive the same friction (and therefore acceleration/deceleration/turning power). This is obviously not true. There are definitely other factors involved, but I think it's clear that surface area has a significant effect.
Those infected with Code Red would NOT be violating this law. The proposed law specifically says "knowingly" and "with intent" in several places, so if something happened without your knowledge or malicious intent, you wouldn't be a felon.
...
...
...
...
(a) Whoever -
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer
(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud
(5) (A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program
(7) with intent to extort
Firstly, I can't believe how charitably you view the post's "error". You are really going out of your way to give them the benefit of the doubt.
/. subversive underground?
Question 1: What are you currently working on?
Question 2: If backdoor-free encryption is outlawed, do you promise to create for us a kick-ass, (virtually) unbreakable version of the spammimic and distribute it through the
The distinction the questioner fails to make is between it being *possible* to go cashless and *everyone* acutally doing it. There is a huge difference.
It seems obvious that cash gives you lots of options that other, more virtual, currencies do not. Most notably anonimity and freedom from scrutiny (plus it still works when the power is out). Why on earth would everyone suddenly choose to give up those options?
Something along the lines of: "No corporation may violate any rights which the government is not allowed to violate."
The whole point of contracts is to get you to agree to do something you wouldn't otherwise be bound to do. For example, the gov't can't tell me not to go to work for company X. But when company Y hires me they want me to sign a non-compete agreeing not to go to work for company X. That is, giving up my *right* to work for company X. All contracts are about giving up some rights in exchange for something. (Naturally, IM ANAL, no, wait, that's not what I meant...)
I hear he also hacked into /. and substituted the word "tumor" for "gall bladder". Yeah... *that's* what happened...
WrinkledShirt reviewing a book from No Starch Press?
/. book review to shamelessly promote your product."
Come on now. Not that it's not a good book, it may be, but let's have reviewers without a vested interest, so as not to give the "impression of impropriety", or should I say the "impression of using a
Please.
Rolling over, turning the other cheek, taking the pacifist approach, whatever you call it, does not solve anything either. I don't want rash, ill considered retaliation, but there is a lot to be said for sticking up for ourselves, establishing a record of punishing wrong-doers, creating a deterrent. And for eliminating those who we judge to be likely to commit unacceptable acts in the future. Like Bin Laden for example. Whether he did this or not, he's clearly an accomplished terrorist with no intention of stopping, who is targeting the US, and making threats. We should blast him to pigeon bait.
Can see it billowing smoke from the office
windows. We heard a second large explosion around 10:30. Don't know what it was yet.
One guy here was outside when the plane hit
the Pentagon, he heard the plane's engine, saw
the fireball. We had debris coming down in the
courtyard here from the explosion. Have a couple
people from the company over at the Pentagon, but
everyone's accounted for now.
There's been much discussion here, and there is a wealth of info on the CPT site, regarding patents. Some seemingly obvious, some so vague that they include nearly everything, some claiming "invention" of a on-line version of a long-standing business practice, etc. And it appears that the only way any of these patents can be revoked is through court action.
My question is, what level of success has there been in fighting these patents? Who has expended the effort and funds to take a shot at them? Who has succeeded, who's failed, and what's the outlook for the future?
What do you see as the current biggest technological threat to personal freedoms and rights?
And what most threatens the usefulness of the internet and related technologies for the general public?
You could follow this
Guide to Writing Unmaintainable Code.
If we put this article in close proximity to Mr. Connell's, in a searing flash of heat and light they would negate each other in a matter/anti-matter like reaction.
Longevity *can* be an issue. There is a shocking amount of code still in use from the 1970's, mostly Fortran and Cobol. I have personally had the misfortune of having to update code last modified in 1977. I know it's hard to believe, but there is a ton of it out there.
A programmer needs to realize that when he/she creates a program it becomes a living thing that
may be around for a long time, may be handled by many people, and may be used for things the original programmer never imagined. Good programmers who keep this in mind make the process easier for everyone.
Well said.
What would be great is if we could swap Katz for a legal analyst. The sheer volume of IANAL posts and their corresponding topics show how much we could use some accurate insight into DMCA, Patent law, privacy, etc. I think keeping up with all ongoing cases and sharing the implications with the /. community could be a full time job.
Well, Taco, waddya say?
They say it disolves in salt water, but there's not likely to be much salt water at your average stadium, so the stuff might be around for a while. And what would a "gelstorm" do to the traction on a football field or racetrack?
The primary use, over the ocean, sounds interesting, but frankly I think the mention of killing clouds over sporting events is just a little sensationalism to raise hype.
I did a fun little demo once. I was working for a certain government agency, building a website to make a whole lotta data accessible via interactive queries on the web. The data was in an Oracle DB, and we had a few Oracle contractor DBAs. The brass decided to send me to do a demo, so I travelled across a few states, got up in front of several hundred people, and showed them how every time you submit a query the whole thing would just hang. Turned out the DBAs picked that day to take the DB down for maintenance. No one told them I was doing a demo. Sigh. Ahhhh, those were the days...
One problematic assumption these folks make (but do not state, as it would discredit their other claims) is that the earth should and would naturally stay the same as it is right now. While some of the general public may swallow this if they don't think about it too much, it is obviously false. There is plenty of evidence that long before we had an impact on the earth it went in and out of ice ages and had huge temperature fluctuations.
Global weather is a chaos system. You can't predict the behavior of a chaos system. It changes all the time, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, of its own accord. That's why it is chaotic.
You can effect a chaos system, though, so one could make a valid argument that we MAY be effecting the global weather and therefore should reduce our emmissions, etc. But we can never KNOW for sure whether or how we effect the weather system.
I think some scientists may grasp this, but continue to use scare tactics and misleading information to try to get people to clean up and reduce our impact on the environment. Which is a reasonable goal, but an unacceptable means of promoting it.
There is an excellent book on Chaos by James Gleick. It does a good job of presenting the basic ideas of chaos in a non-mathematical, comprehensible way.
"It won't be long before we (individually) can all be sued into a state of indenture for violating patents.." on our genes, which are being issued right now. How many (thousands of) patents are going through right now on gene sequences that *you* are currently using in your own genetic code? Bad lifeform!! Stop using that gene!
Ha ha! I'm picturing a boardroom full of marketing guys talking each other into believing that one.
I think M$ is building up linux on purpose so it will look like there is legitimate competition out there, showing that they are not a monopoly.
Of course, they want the minimum competition that will keep the trustbusters off their backs. And sadly Linux is perfect for this as it is much discussed, much hyped, but unlikely to significantly eat into their desktop market any time soon.
Ebay is a TRUSTe Licensee, which means they have to conform to a bunch of privacy policy requirements. Send your complaints to TRUSTe and try to get their TRUSTe privileges revoked.
This thing about expecting the kids to realize the teacher was being facetious is total bull. It is the teacher's job to be clear. If the students misunderstood him it's his own damn fault.
The best approach is to start from the beginning. And by that I mean learn about computers and computer science in a chronological order. Every idea, technology, and algorithm that has been created, invented, or developed came about for a reason and in an environment and context which is essential to understanding the thing itself.
In computer science, much like math, each concept is built upon the preceding concepts. It is difficult, sometimes impossible, to fully understand one concept if you are missing even one of the many concepts upon which it is founded.
So start before computers. Learn about the people who imagined such things, Turing, mechanical adding machines. Learn about the need for better adding machines. Learn about the switches and electronics that existed at that time. Then study the first computers, and the people who created them. Which ideas failed, which succeeded? What codes did they use to run their machines? What practical uses were those machines put to?
The people who ran those machines needed easier ways to run them, and to create programs, so they built tools for themselves, OS's, programming languages. You can study how each of these developed, which ones made it and which didn't, and how the former evolved.
Then transistors came along. Get into how the transistor was created, and how it revolutionized computers.
You get the idea.
A historical approach is the only way to get a real understanding of the field, and it provides a multitude of technical topics and exercises. The student could think through each of the problems that the creators of these technologies faced, and compare their own results with those of their predecessors. What you end up with is not only an understanding of what we have now, but of how we got here, how these things developed, what their original purpose was, and how they evolved.
check them out here/a& gt;.
The law that protects Census data is Title 13.
You can read about it on the Census Policy page: (at the bottom of the page)
http://www.census.gov/main/www/poli cie s.html
Or on congresses 'code' page: http://uscode.house.gov/title_13.htm Here's the meat:
(a) Neither the Secretary, nor any other officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, or local government census liaison, may, except as provided in section 8 or 16 or chapter 10 of this title or section 210 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 or section 2(f) of the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997 -
(1) use the information furnished under the provisions of this title for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which it is supplied; or
(2) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment or individual under this title can be identified; or
(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees of the Department or bureau or agency thereof to examine the individual reports.