Sounds like it could be used for Microsoft to take a swing at all of the legitimate anti-virus/scumware/etc apps for advertising how critical their software is because Windows has so many problems.
In that case, can we use the bit that says "illegal to misrepresent the extent to which software is required for computer security or privacy" to sue Microsoft for advertizing "the most secure version of Windows yet" and claiming that the likes of XP and Vista are designed in a security concious way (implicit in the above) as opposed to implementing the likes of UAC?
A Google search revealed this way to test specific DNS servers from the command line (in case you're using a DNS server other than the one that's authoritative for the netblock you're in):
Good: $ dig +short @208.67.222.222 porttest.dns-oarc.net txt z.y.x.w.v.u.t.s.r.q.p.o.n.m.l.k.j.i.h.g.f.e.d.c.b.a.pt.dns-oarc.net. "208.67.222.222 is GOOD: 26 queries in 0.1 seconds from 26 ports with std dev 17746.18
Poor: $ dig +short @206.13.28.12 porttest.dns-oarc.net txt z.y.x.w.v.u.t.s.r.q.p.o.n.m.l.k.j.i.h.g.f.e.d.c.b.a.pt.dns-oarc.net. "206.13.28.13 is POOR: 26 queries in 0.2 seconds from 1 ports with std dev 0.00"
The drawback to this scheme is hydrogen's energy density. It is not even remotely close to single or double-base smokeless propellants. This is unlikely to go anywhere.
As others have pointed out, the USA lobbying isn't entirely accurate.
That aside, I don't see this as being a IAU political decision. We have literally thousands of designations in science that are based on the 1st "thing" to be classified (and sometimes to be discovered, too). So, in this case, since a new designation of a thing has been created, and Pluto is essentially the first to be classified, I see no problem with calling it and others like it "Plutoids". Actually, I think the definition makes a lot of sense.
A great book, and a favorite of mine, that discusses the still ubiquitous reclassification of things in the natural world by squabbling scientists, is Bill Bryson's _A Short History of Nearly Everything_. Good stuff.
'... a sort of rolling, computer-screen on wheels mounted with a webcam that bears a slight resemblance to the R2D2 of "Star Wars" fame.'
I think even "slight" is stretching it a bit. By the same logic, you could claim that a guy on a skateboard with a super soaker resembles an Abrams tank.
... and accept that theirs is the superior intellect... Oh man, no bueno! Last time somebody said something like that it was stilted speeches and OMG that's his real chest all the way to the Mutara nebula!
And yet they invented it anyway. I guess you could use it to study how the brain processes images, but for the life of me I can't think of a truly beneficial, non-evil application.
Uh, how about research into artificial sight for the blind, or restoring visual comprehension to persons with brain damage? A tool is a tool, an object that is neither good or evil. It's how people use it that's the problem.
Passport is already a "Real ID" and may soon become required to obtain access to any Federal building (such as the one blown up by Timothy McVeigh). The Oaklahoma Federal building bombing was done by parking a truck full of explosives on a public street in front of the building and making it go boom. No access to the building ever occured.
5. Well... independent music is cool. Why not just play independent music?
*snip*
The ONLY exceptions to this are (A) direct deals with each and every sound recording copyright owner, (B) copyright owners that are willing to make a blanket "waive" of fees So if you want to play independant artist's music, wouldn't you be going to said artists and saying, "I'd love to stream your music to my audience", thus getting their permission in the first place, and "I'd rather pay you for the privledge than the RIAA", thus making a direct deal, anyway?
Why, even if we look at a best case supposition for the future, the mostly-utopian Star Trek, do you see Scotty, LaForge, or O'Brien cooling their heels all the time? Of course not. They're always replacing this or fixing that or realigning this or repolarizing that and heaven help us if they have to remodulate something. And if they have to do this all the time, it's a wonder NASA has as few problems as they do.
Just remember, a busy engineer is a happy engineer.
I suppose that's why the crew of the Battlestar Galactica are always chasing algae laden planets...... oh wait, they want it to eat, not to fuel vipers? Hmm... anybody want a algae burger?
IANAL, and therefore I may be showing my naievity, but I was under the impression that only a judge could dismiss a case, but that the plaintiff could drop the case. Makes it sound like the RIAA was playing judge and jury... though of course that might not be far from the truth...
What, did you sleep through elementary physics and the principles of EM radiation?
A cell phone is nothing more than a fancy radio with an omnidirectional antenna. That antenna, per its name, is going to radiate a certian amount of RF energy in all directions. RF that is radiated in the direction of the cell tower will be recieved by the antennas on the tower. RF that is radiated in any other direction will gradually be absorbed by the surrounding environment to no practical effect. So if your LED RF detector happens to be in the close vicinity of your cell phone when the phone is transmitting, it's going to be hit with RF that wouldn't have hit the cell tower anyway!
The only possibly conceivable way that the LED RF detector could have any impact on the signal strength between the cell phone and the cell tower is if it was exactly in the path between the cell phone antenna and the cell tower antenna. The probability that this would occur is so small as to be trivial, and with the wide angle of radiation on most cell phone tower antennas, and the fact that there is usually more than one antenna for any direction, reduces the probability effectively to zero.
In other words, it's crochety as hell. I have all the "speak the RFC's exactly or thy shall not pass" options turned on. I publish a SPF record, for what good it will do. I also 5xx reject anything from overseas.
Even though this is my own personal mail server, I haven't had too many false positives as far as rejects go... certianly nothing that a tweak here or there in the allow/deny hosts file wouldn't take care of.
All in all, I've recieved less than a dozen pieces of spam in the last year and a half. Not too shabby, I think.
I don't know about the actual boxes, but we just got 3x software boxes (standard book sized), one each in a 1' cubed shipping box. This from one of the largest distributors in the country.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like it could be used for Microsoft to take a swing at all of the legitimate anti-virus/scumware/etc apps for advertising how critical their software is because Windows has so many problems.
In that case, can we use the bit that says "illegal to misrepresent the extent to which software is required for computer security or privacy" to sue Microsoft for advertizing "the most secure version of Windows yet" and claiming that the likes of XP and Vista are designed in a security concious way (implicit in the above) as opposed to implementing the likes of UAC?
A Google search revealed this way to test specific DNS servers from the command line (in case you're using a DNS server other than the one that's authoritative for the netblock you're in):
Good:
$ dig +short @208.67.222.222 porttest.dns-oarc.net txt
z.y.x.w.v.u.t.s.r.q.p.o.n.m.l.k.j.i.h.g.f.e.d.c.b.a.pt.dns-oarc.net.
"208.67.222.222 is GOOD: 26 queries in 0.1 seconds from 26 ports with std dev 17746.18
Poor:
$ dig +short @206.13.28.12 porttest.dns-oarc.net txt
z.y.x.w.v.u.t.s.r.q.p.o.n.m.l.k.j.i.h.g.f.e.d.c.b.a.pt.dns-oarc.net.
"206.13.28.13 is POOR: 26 queries in 0.2 seconds from 1 ports with std dev 0.00"
More discussion on this method here:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20759262-CERT-VU800113-DNS-Cache-Poisoning-Issue~start=20
The drawback to this scheme is hydrogen's energy density. It is not even remotely close to single or double-base smokeless propellants. This is unlikely to go anywhere.
You mean unlikely to go anywhere fast, eh?
As others have pointed out, the USA lobbying isn't entirely accurate.
That aside, I don't see this as being a IAU political decision. We have literally thousands of designations in science that are based on the 1st "thing" to be classified (and sometimes to be discovered, too). So, in this case, since a new designation of a thing has been created, and Pluto is essentially the first to be classified, I see no problem with calling it and others like it "Plutoids". Actually, I think the definition makes a lot of sense.
A great book, and a favorite of mine, that discusses the still ubiquitous reclassification of things in the natural world by squabbling scientists, is Bill Bryson's _A Short History of Nearly Everything_. Good stuff.
But also... you're time is better spent.
;)
It's true! You're right. Your time is better spent.
'... a sort of rolling, computer-screen on wheels mounted with a webcam that bears a slight resemblance to the R2D2 of "Star Wars" fame.'
I think even "slight" is stretching it a bit. By the same logic, you could claim that a guy on a skateboard with a super soaker resembles an Abrams tank.
... and accept that theirs is the superior intellect ...
Oh man, no bueno! Last time somebody said something like that it was stilted speeches and OMG that's his real chest all the way to the Mutara nebula!
30 minutes after you surf there, you want to surf there again...
You must be new here...
It's simple, really. Equip them with jump jets! That way they just fire up the engines, point them towards the ice, and...
... oh.
Heisenberg would like a word with you...
... wondering if they could introduce you to this wonderfull food product called Hot Pockets.
And yet they invented it anyway. I guess you could use it to study how the brain processes images, but for the life of me I can't think of a truly beneficial, non-evil application.
Uh, how about research into artificial sight for the blind, or restoring visual comprehension to persons with brain damage? A tool is a tool, an object that is neither good or evil. It's how people use it that's the problem.
The current limitation is that you cannot releaste the energy in a short burst.
Yes, precisely!
The computer won't boot, so I can't extract the key with a key finder.
Combine a pinch of:
http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/
With a dash of:
http://www.drowaelder.de/winpe/keyfinder-pe/keyfinder-pe.htm
http://www.drowaelder.de/winpe/keyfinder-pe/keyfinder-pe.cab
Serves an infinite number.
*snip*
The ONLY exceptions to this are (A) direct deals with each and every sound recording copyright owner, (B) copyright owners that are willing to make a blanket "waive" of fees So if you want to play independant artist's music, wouldn't you be going to said artists and saying, "I'd love to stream your music to my audience", thus getting their permission in the first place, and "I'd rather pay you for the privledge than the RIAA", thus making a direct deal, anyway?
... least of all NASA.
Why, even if we look at a best case supposition for the future, the mostly-utopian Star Trek, do you see Scotty, LaForge, or O'Brien cooling their heels all the time? Of course not. They're always replacing this or fixing that or realigning this or repolarizing that and heaven help us if they have to remodulate something. And if they have to do this all the time, it's a wonder NASA has as few problems as they do.
Just remember, a busy engineer is a happy engineer.
She is getting exorcise
You're right. Anyone doing the Electric Slide is definitely in need of an exorcism.
I suppose that's why the crew of the Battlestar Galactica are always chasing algae laden planets... ... oh wait, they want it to eat, not to fuel vipers? Hmm... anybody want a algae burger?
IANAL, and therefore I may be showing my naievity, but I was under the impression that only a judge could dismiss a case, but that the plaintiff could drop the case. Makes it sound like the RIAA was playing judge and jury... though of course that might not be far from the truth...
What, did you sleep through elementary physics and the principles of EM radiation?
A cell phone is nothing more than a fancy radio with an omnidirectional antenna. That antenna, per its name, is going to radiate a certian amount of RF energy in all directions. RF that is radiated in the direction of the cell tower will be recieved by the antennas on the tower. RF that is radiated in any other direction will gradually be absorbed by the surrounding environment to no practical effect. So if your LED RF detector happens to be in the close vicinity of your cell phone when the phone is transmitting, it's going to be hit with RF that wouldn't have hit the cell tower anyway!
The only possibly conceivable way that the LED RF detector could have any impact on the signal strength between the cell phone and the cell tower is if it was exactly in the path between the cell phone antenna and the cell tower antenna. The probability that this would occur is so small as to be trivial, and with the wide angle of radiation on most cell phone tower antennas, and the fact that there is usually more than one antenna for any direction, reduces the probability effectively to zero.
In other words, it's crochety as hell. I have all the "speak the RFC's exactly or thy shall not pass" options turned on. I publish a SPF record, for what good it will do. I also 5xx reject anything from overseas.
Even though this is my own personal mail server, I haven't had too many false positives as far as rejects go... certianly nothing that a tweak here or there in the allow/deny hosts file wouldn't take care of.
All in all, I've recieved less than a dozen pieces of spam in the last year and a half. Not too shabby, I think.
Sounds Swedish...
I don't know about the actual boxes, but we just got 3x software boxes (standard book sized), one each in a 1' cubed shipping box. This from one of the largest distributors in the country.
Talk about driving up the shipping price...
"Captain, I'm detecting enormous levels of marketspeak and a high buzzword quotient from this article summary. It is highly illogical."