And if they choose to ignore your suggestion and vote anyway, despite knowing little or nothing about the issues, 'cuz MTV said it was a cool idea? Because these are the kinds of people the grandparent was referring to. Again: Try to become informed on the issues and the candidates. However, if you're not going to do this, *don't vote*.
Let me say it again since you seem to have missed it. An outside entity is capable of affecting a change on your computer without your express consent. Full stop. Now, if I was talking about Code Red, you'd say "Yeah, that's definitely a security vulnerability". But when Google does it to prevent unauthorized copying, you say it's just fine. So, which is it?
The point, here, is that there is a vulnerability in the browser which makes it possible to modify it's behaviour from the outside. This is a security vulnerability, plain and simple. The fact that Google is using this for arguably "white hat" purposes is neither here nor there.
No, I understand that you have the right to quote copyrighted works. This doesn't fall under fair use AFAIK, but still it is your right.
No, actually, it falls *exactly* under fair use. Would you like me to quote the law on fair use doctrine? Okay, I will:
"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
I think we can agree, quoting of a copyrighted work falls under this definition (presuming you are doing it for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, etc, etc). And if you still don't believe it, feel free to read the law yourself.
What's next, banning cell phone cameras in book stores, or libraries?
Funny you should mention this (unless it was deliberate?) The magazine's publishers in Japan are trying to convince stores to ban camera phones in stores, exactly as you described.
Uhh, crippleware *comes* that way, therefore it's clearly not a security issue. What we have here, however, is an external entity affecting changes on your computer without your express consent and without your control. How is this *not* a security vulnerability?
I used to do the same thing during university (University of Alberta in Edmonton), and plan to do it again this winter. I would quite comfortably ride in -25C (roughly a 30-40 minute ride) with only a few layers (it's *amazing* how much heat the human body produces), typically fleece pants plus track pants on the bottom, and a fleece jacket and wind breaker on top, plus toque, gloves, scarf, and a couple pairs of socks.
And as for snow, TBH, riding during a fresh snow fall is one of the most enjoyable things I can think of.
It's also very important to note than the signals being combined in interferometry must be aligned to within a half a wavelength of tolerence (IIRC). So, for a radio signal, this is pretty easy. For optical interferometry, however, this is incredibly difficult and requires remarkably precise tuning of the optical path. This would be why optical interferometry is done on relatively small scales (although there are a number of projects out there working to build larger optical interferometers).
Great, they got better-than-HST resolution... in the radio spectrum, where it's significantly easier to perform interferometry. Wake me up when they can pull this off at shorter wavelengths... *that* will be interesting.
It's actually much harder to hold yourself to an external standard, and requires much more thought and discipline.
Yeah, and living to an external standard because you're too lazy to think for yourself is really quite easy. Just do what you're told and everything will be just fine, 'cuz the bible and the Church tells you so.
It's easy to just say you do ("why, I'm a practicing Catholic...") and then just adjust your actual actions and beliefs to whatever is comfortable or expedient.
Yeah, and it's hard to say you do while, at the same time, realizing that your faith shouldn't be the entire driving force for public policy, thus forcing you to research and understand the issues before choosing a position that will dictate the rights of 300 million people.
And if you're a bit masochistic, and have a GBA and a flash cart, you can get frotz for your Gameboy Advance. And yes, it is useable (if a bit tedious)... I finished Shade on this (which, BTW, is an awesome little game). Much fun.:)
Well, my argument was specifically related to the "lambda" construct which, I'm sorry, is basically useless in it's current form. See the Python FAQ, sections 6.9 and 6.10. Of course, their argument is that "lambda" is simply syntactic sugar, so who cares? Just define a function. My argument is, why bother with a half-assed "lambda" construct in the first place if it's going to be ridiculously broken.
Which means, with 154, the Liberals and NDP form a majority (well, 50% exactly, actually). I *think* this was a result of some recounts and disputes in various ridings which ended up changing the numbers a bit.
First off, this concept is by no means unique to Ruby, so give credit where credit's due. The whole concept of "blocks" as first class objects was stolen from Smalltalk, which has had this concept since the beginning (back in the 80s). And, of course, this concept was basically taken from Lisp and other functional languages, where they're referred to as closures, or lambda expressions. And plenty of other languages have inherited this feature as well, including Perl (but not, unfortunately, Java... *damn* I wish Java had closures).
Python, OTOH... you're absolutely right. Again, they tried to inherit from Lisp with the lambda construct, and in the process, somehow fell flat on their faces. I quite like Python for many reasons, but this is one bit of brokenness that I've never been able to understand.
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Okay, first, there's the disputes over land. Everyone will say everyone else's land is theirs. Not unlike the India/Pakistan conflict, or, you know, that whole Israel/Palestine thing. "[Dividing] up the country" is no where *near* as easy as it sounds.
Then there's the issue of the Kurds. The presence of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq would likely destabilize what is already a volatile situation in neighbouring Turkey, which has a rather large Kurdish population that it works hard to subjegate.
So, basically, what you suggestion would only work to further destabilize the region.
Frankly, the fact is, if there's one thing Saddam did, it was maintain stability in a divided country. Yup, he did it with terror and totalitarian rule, but it was stable. Now, we have no idea what will happen, but, IMHO, it won't be good...
Ha! You really think you could get stoned on second-hand marijuana smoke? Sorry, that's just ridiculous. The concentration of smoke to make that possible would have to be *huge*! Moreover, THC is a highly unstable chemical and would break down in the atmosphere relatively quickly.
When you see beautiful people on every channel all the time, you begin to want to look like that too. When you see people driving the best cars and having the best things, you want those thing too. When you see people engaging in self-destructive behaviors that have no consequences in T.V. land, you think you can do those things too.
So *that's* my problem! See, recently I've started experiencing this incredible urge to get liposuction, buy an SUV, and become a coke addict. But, now I know, it's the TV's fault! Thanks!
I'd imagine there'd also still be issues with the atmosphere blocking or scattering interesting wavelengths. For example, one of the more interesting bands Hubble can observe in is the near-ultraviolet. Unfortunately, this range of the spectrum is unobservable from the ground due to atmospheric scattering. Incidentally, this is also a frequency range that the JWST can't detect in, despite it being billed as a replacement for the Hubble.
Holy cripes, here we go again... why can't you people get it?
it isn't an energy *source*
Umm, that is the whole *point* of using hydrogen: to provide an efficient storage mechanism for energy, which can then be extracted cleanly using fuel cells, combustion, etc.
And *why* do we want this? Because then we can generate large quantities of energy in central locations using methods not normally available to vehicles (hydroelectric, solar, wind), as well as benefiting from economies of scale with traditional technologies (traditional, large scale power plants are *far* more efficient than a standard internal combustion engine in a car).
Moreover, centralized generation makes it easier to move to new generation technologies (geothermal, tidal, etc), and to upgrade existing plants (since you only have thousands of plants to upgrade, rather than hundreds of millions of cars).
So, in the end, I'd say we all benefit from a multi-billion dollar investment in Hydrogen energy.
Slashdot Mirror
And if they choose to ignore your suggestion and vote anyway, despite knowing little or nothing about the issues, 'cuz MTV said it was a cool idea? Because these are the kinds of people the grandparent was referring to. Again: Try to become informed on the issues and the candidates. However, if you're not going to do this, *don't vote*.
Sounds like you might be interested in Squeak-E.
Let me say it again since you seem to have missed it. An outside entity is capable of affecting a change on your computer without your express consent. Full stop. Now, if I was talking about Code Red, you'd say "Yeah, that's definitely a security vulnerability". But when Google does it to prevent unauthorized copying, you say it's just fine. So, which is it?
The point, here, is that there is a vulnerability in the browser which makes it possible to modify it's behaviour from the outside. This is a security vulnerability, plain and simple. The fact that Google is using this for arguably "white hat" purposes is neither here nor there.
No, I understand that you have the right to quote copyrighted works. This doesn't fall under fair use AFAIK, but still it is your right.
No, actually, it falls *exactly* under fair use. Would you like me to quote the law on fair use doctrine? Okay, I will:
"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
I think we can agree, quoting of a copyrighted work falls under this definition (presuming you are doing it for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, etc, etc). And if you still don't believe it, feel free to read the law yourself.
What's next, banning cell phone cameras in book stores, or libraries?
Funny you should mention this (unless it was deliberate?) The magazine's publishers in Japan are trying to convince stores to ban camera phones in stores, exactly as you described.
Uhh, crippleware *comes* that way, therefore it's clearly not a security issue. What we have here, however, is an external entity affecting changes on your computer without your express consent and without your control. How is this *not* a security vulnerability?
I used to do the same thing during university (University of Alberta in Edmonton), and plan to do it again this winter. I would quite comfortably ride in -25C (roughly a 30-40 minute ride) with only a few layers (it's *amazing* how much heat the human body produces), typically fleece pants plus track pants on the bottom, and a fleece jacket and wind breaker on top, plus toque, gloves, scarf, and a couple pairs of socks.
And as for snow, TBH, riding during a fresh snow fall is one of the most enjoyable things I can think of.
Not to mention a clone of the Google Toolbar for Firefox, which is as good, if not better than the "official" version.
What, you mean like this?
It's also very important to note than the signals being combined in interferometry must be aligned to within a half a wavelength of tolerence (IIRC). So, for a radio signal, this is pretty easy. For optical interferometry, however, this is incredibly difficult and requires remarkably precise tuning of the optical path. This would be why optical interferometry is done on relatively small scales (although there are a number of projects out there working to build larger optical interferometers).
Great, they got better-than-HST resolution... in the radio spectrum, where it's significantly easier to perform interferometry. Wake me up when they can pull this off at shorter wavelengths... *that* will be interesting.
It's actually much harder to hold yourself to an external standard, and requires much more thought and discipline.
...") and then just adjust your actual actions and beliefs to whatever is comfortable or expedient.
Yeah, and living to an external standard because you're too lazy to think for yourself is really quite easy. Just do what you're told and everything will be just fine, 'cuz the bible and the Church tells you so.
It's easy to just say you do ("why, I'm a practicing Catholic
Yeah, and it's hard to say you do while, at the same time, realizing that your faith shouldn't be the entire driving force for public policy, thus forcing you to research and understand the issues before choosing a position that will dictate the rights of 300 million people.
And if you're a bit masochistic, and have a GBA and a flash cart, you can get frotz for your Gameboy Advance. And yes, it is useable (if a bit tedious)... I finished Shade on this (which, BTW, is an awesome little game). Much fun. :)
Well, given that the grandparent was specifically referring to US elections, yeah, I'd say that statement holds.
Well, my argument was specifically related to the "lambda" construct which, I'm sorry, is basically useless in it's current form. See the Python FAQ, sections 6.9 and 6.10. Of course, their argument is that "lambda" is simply syntactic sugar, so who cares? Just define a function. My argument is, why bother with a half-assed "lambda" construct in the first place if it's going to be ridiculously broken.
Nope. If you look at the numbers, this was the breakdown:
Liberal: 135
Conservative: 99
Bloq: 54
NDP: 19
Independant: 1
Which means, with 154, the Liberals and NDP form a majority (well, 50% exactly, actually). I *think* this was a result of some recounts and disputes in various ridings which ended up changing the numbers a bit.
First off, this concept is by no means unique to Ruby, so give credit where credit's due. The whole concept of "blocks" as first class objects was stolen from Smalltalk, which has had this concept since the beginning (back in the 80s). And, of course, this concept was basically taken from Lisp and other functional languages, where they're referred to as closures, or lambda expressions. And plenty of other languages have inherited this feature as well, including Perl (but not, unfortunately, Java... *damn* I wish Java had closures).
Python, OTOH... you're absolutely right. Again, they tried to inherit from Lisp with the lambda construct, and in the process, somehow fell flat on their faces. I quite like Python for many reasons, but this is one bit of brokenness that I've never been able to understand.
the nipple erecting area
Must... not... make... juvenile joke...
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Okay, first, there's the disputes over land. Everyone will say everyone else's land is theirs. Not unlike the India/Pakistan conflict, or, you know, that whole Israel/Palestine thing. "[Dividing] up the country" is no where *near* as easy as it sounds.
Then there's the issue of the Kurds. The presence of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq would likely destabilize what is already a volatile situation in neighbouring Turkey, which has a rather large Kurdish population that it works hard to subjegate.
So, basically, what you suggestion would only work to further destabilize the region.
Frankly, the fact is, if there's one thing Saddam did, it was maintain stability in a divided country. Yup, he did it with terror and totalitarian rule, but it was stable. Now, we have no idea what will happen, but, IMHO, it won't be good...
Ha! You really think you could get stoned on second-hand marijuana smoke? Sorry, that's just ridiculous. The concentration of smoke to make that possible would have to be *huge*! Moreover, THC is a highly unstable chemical and would break down in the atmosphere relatively quickly.
it would be cool to have a lot of cheap quick referendums
Oh yeah, 'cuz that's worked *so* well in California...
Bah, just get gGo and a JVM. Works beautifully, interfaces with GNU Go, and allows one to connect to IGS. And, best of all, it's free!
When you see beautiful people on every channel all the time, you begin to want to look like that too. When you see people driving the best cars and having the best things, you want those thing too. When you see people engaging in self-destructive behaviors that have no consequences in T.V. land, you think you can do those things too.
So *that's* my problem! See, recently I've started experiencing this incredible urge to get liposuction, buy an SUV, and become a coke addict. But, now I know, it's the TV's fault! Thanks!
I'd imagine there'd also still be issues with the atmosphere blocking or scattering interesting wavelengths. For example, one of the more interesting bands Hubble can observe in is the near-ultraviolet. Unfortunately, this range of the spectrum is unobservable from the ground due to atmospheric scattering. Incidentally, this is also a frequency range that the JWST can't detect in, despite it being billed as a replacement for the Hubble.
Holy cripes, here we go again... why can't you people get it?
it isn't an energy *source*
Umm, that is the whole *point* of using hydrogen: to provide an efficient storage mechanism for energy, which can then be extracted cleanly using fuel cells, combustion, etc.
And *why* do we want this? Because then we can generate large quantities of energy in central locations using methods not normally available to vehicles (hydroelectric, solar, wind), as well as benefiting from economies of scale with traditional technologies (traditional, large scale power plants are *far* more efficient than a standard internal combustion engine in a car).
Moreover, centralized generation makes it easier to move to new generation technologies (geothermal, tidal, etc), and to upgrade existing plants (since you only have thousands of plants to upgrade, rather than hundreds of millions of cars).
So, in the end, I'd say we all benefit from a multi-billion dollar investment in Hydrogen energy.