The lack of spanning centuries was a flaw in the previous post. It was written on the assumption that the religions as they exist at this moment are representative throughout history. But the past shows this isn't true: Religions change.
Hardly just one. Christianity today is quite moderate (mostly, there are exceptions), but it has had it's inquisitions and holy wars in the past. A large part of the reason the US was founded with a secular government was to avoid the christian-on-christian violence seen in Europe, where Protestants and Catholics had been taking turns slaughtering each other and many minority sects were banned outright. Judaism lacks the numbers to do much today other than take part in some territorial squabbles, but their own historical texts describe how they came to possess Israel by first emptying it of former occupants, and you can see the propaganda still in there describing the previous tribes as so evil the land rejected them and God personally ordered even the children slaughtered to exterminate their line. I don't know a great deal about the other significent religions, but I'm sure a little research would reveal even Buddhism - usually regarded as one of the most non-violent religions around - must have a few skeletons in the closet.
On the other hand, the iPod dock connector (which this places) was not royalty free, and Apple only licensed it to accessory makers, not other phone manufacturers. My theory is that Apple wants to maintain a segregated accessory market - one set of accessories for iPhones, one for non-iPhone phones, and no way to use a phone with an accessory from the wrong family. That way a lot of the premium accessories are iPhone-exclusive.
If you want to talk about connectors, the magsafe is a good one. Apple holds the patent to that, and won't license it to anyone else at all. Apple, and Apple alone, can use it. Thus there are no third-party chargers for macbooks.
Fighting on their home territory. The problem there is that in a theological debate, those radical leaders probably have the upper hand. They know the subject, and all the best arguments, and they know the culture well enough to tap into political and social elements that can interact with the religious.
Not an issue, so long as there are alternatives. If your webhost yanks you, you can always get another - there are thousands of them. The problem arises when one company becomes of such importance that it has an effective veto over what may be published and seen. There are alternatives to youtube for hosting video, and plenty of them, but there are none for promoting video. If this same film had just been posted on someone's website, chances are it would never have been seen by more than a hundred or so people.
Quite possible. Look at it from the perspective of someone in the religious right: They see the world divided, with the forces of Islam threatening to destroy western civilisation - a violent barbarian horde, willing to kill all who oppose them. Even worse, the rest of western society seems blinded to this - unable to see through their political correctness and fear of being seen as racist that there is a culture war on. This must be quite terrifying for those right-wing Christians - it's as if Hitler was marching across Europe, and Chamberlain just wants to sit down with him for tea and crumpets. So, they ask, how can they convince the leaders of the free world that Islam poses a threat so serious that action must be taken? The answer seems obvious: Let the fanatics be their own undoing. Goad them into acts of violence so great that they can no longer be ignored, and so prove to everyone that there can be no possibility of a peaceful coexistance.
It's a good plan, too, because it really does prove their point. If even just making an obscure film insulting the religion is enough to spark off riots and murders around the world, then it does start to look like the multicultural dream isn't realistic. When the foundational ideals of one culture are an intolerable evil to another, how can they occupy the same space without conflict?
The problem isn't something crypto can solve. It comes down to an untrusted client. When a client reports 'My player just stabbed this other player' how can the other clients be sure this is what really happened, and the player isn't really using a hacked client to achieve superhuman precision in aiming or hit people from across the level? There are some techniques that can be used to make software much trickier to alter but, as long experience with copy-protection on games has shown, if the software is running locally then it can be modified somehow.
It's possible. That radiation has to come from somewhere - a sufficiently advanced nanotechnology could create bots that collect all the radioisotopes together into convenient lumps for disposal. If you've got tech that advanced though, you could probably radiation-proof humans anyway. In the more immediate future, biotech is probably a lot easier to engineer than nano: Make plants that collect the radioisotopes from soil and bioaccumulate. After a few years you'd have radiation-free soil, and some mid-level radioactive compost to dispose of instead.
This rather surprised me. Given that carbon has p-orbitals, and that those orbitals should be locked into position by being used to bond adjacent atoms, I'd have thought the non-spherical orbitals to be visible. I concude that even A-level chemistry textbooks lie.
No. You never needed a propritary connector. Some docking station music players used the analog lines from the propritary connector, but the new 'lightning' connector doesn't even have those, and in any event they weren't required to play audio. They just reduced the cost of doing so a bit.
It doesn't break the video streaming, or if it did then it would be easy to modify the services to compensate. It also doesn't block games, providing you aren't trying to run a server. Now look at the rest... wow, it's like a list of things some ISPs *wish* they could break! Bittorrent and limewire? Those are the programs that let a small number of user suck up huge amounts of network capacity. VoIP? Half of those ISPs run a phone service too, and VoIP is letting people make phone calls for free. Doubley so for mobile internet. Running a server, or using a VPN? Those are business things - and businesses should be paying business rates.
Remember that the ideal internet user, from the ISPs perspective, is one who pays for top-tier services and then uses it to check email and so some light browsing.
Not really huge. There's only been one major nuclear power disaster, Chenobyl. The fear is more over possible disasters than actual disasters - the worst-case scenario for nuclear is very unlikely, but also very disasterous.
A planetary power grid would run into a few problems. Just look at the situation with the middle east right now, and how much the rest of the world invests into trying to keep favor and keep order so the oil flows. That same region is also ideal for solar: Near the equator, and very little cloud coverage to block the precious photons. Do you think Europe would be happy about depending on them for power? We're having enough worry about Russia's control of the gas supply.
There are some technological magic bullet possibilities. A true smart grid could make renewables much more practical, but that has technological and political difficulties too.
The plant took an earthquake *and* flooding, and yet still the radiation leakage into the surrounding area was negligable. Containment held, even if it did need a bit of improvised emergency cooling. That was on an old plant design - if it had been built to a more modern design, there would have been no need even for that. And yet if you watched the television coverage, it looked like Chenobyl II. There was more airtime given to that nuclear plant than to all the rest of Japan put together, so it is no surprise people were terrified. The media played-up the nuclear aspect, because nuclear means scarey and scarey means viewers. And viewers mean money.
Or, as your IP sees it: "Crap, we're out of IP addresses. How much will it cost to retrain our network team, reconfigure our network, test every model of every device and deal with the tech support cost when it inevitably causes compatibility issues? Holy craptacular megabucks. Screw it, they're all going on NAT, only those nasty p2p users and people using VoIP to avoid paying our extortionate phone call bills will be affected."
It needs an effective smart grid to work well. Some way for the turbines to shout 'Wind dropped, brace for shortage!' and air conditioning units and water heaters to take notice and postpone their duties for a little while until the wind picks up again.
Tried that. It was called the CPSA, Content Protection System Architecture. An umbrella group which would combine many different forms of DRM together in a manner which provided end-to-end protection for media. Included in it was an watermarking technology - CPSA compliant devices (Which would include all media devices) that detected the watermark on an analog or unencrypted input would refuse to display anything, because there was no legitimate means by which the watermarked content should be leaving the all-encrypted CPSA domain and thus could be reasonably assumed to be pirate.
CPSA itsself largely fell apart, but some of the technologies which once formed part of it are still around. CSS and HDCP were designed to be part of the CPSA, and it did incorporate some preexisting technologies like Macrovision and CGMS for backwards compatibility purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
You think they aren't now? The only reason they aren't reading your emails right now is that you aren't worth the time.
The lack of spanning centuries was a flaw in the previous post. It was written on the assumption that the religions as they exist at this moment are representative throughout history. But the past shows this isn't true: Religions change.
Why not? Make it a battle for ideas, and may the side with the best arguments win.
Hardly just one. Christianity today is quite moderate (mostly, there are exceptions), but it has had it's inquisitions and holy wars in the past. A large part of the reason the US was founded with a secular government was to avoid the christian-on-christian violence seen in Europe, where Protestants and Catholics had been taking turns slaughtering each other and many minority sects were banned outright. Judaism lacks the numbers to do much today other than take part in some territorial squabbles, but their own historical texts describe how they came to possess Israel by first emptying it of former occupants, and you can see the propaganda still in there describing the previous tribes as so evil the land rejected them and God personally ordered even the children slaughtered to exterminate their line. I don't know a great deal about the other significent religions, but I'm sure a little research would reveal even Buddhism - usually regarded as one of the most non-violent religions around - must have a few skeletons in the closet.
On the other hand, the iPod dock connector (which this places) was not royalty free, and Apple only licensed it to accessory makers, not other phone manufacturers. My theory is that Apple wants to maintain a segregated accessory market - one set of accessories for iPhones, one for non-iPhone phones, and no way to use a phone with an accessory from the wrong family. That way a lot of the premium accessories are iPhone-exclusive.
If you want to talk about connectors, the magsafe is a good one. Apple holds the patent to that, and won't license it to anyone else at all. Apple, and Apple alone, can use it. Thus there are no third-party chargers for macbooks.
Fighting on their home territory. The problem there is that in a theological debate, those radical leaders probably have the upper hand. They know the subject, and all the best arguments, and they know the culture well enough to tap into political and social elements that can interact with the religious.
Not an issue, so long as there are alternatives. If your webhost yanks you, you can always get another - there are thousands of them. The problem arises when one company becomes of such importance that it has an effective veto over what may be published and seen. There are alternatives to youtube for hosting video, and plenty of them, but there are none for promoting video. If this same film had just been posted on someone's website, chances are it would never have been seen by more than a hundred or so people.
Quite possible. Look at it from the perspective of someone in the religious right: They see the world divided, with the forces of Islam threatening to destroy western civilisation - a violent barbarian horde, willing to kill all who oppose them. Even worse, the rest of western society seems blinded to this - unable to see through their political correctness and fear of being seen as racist that there is a culture war on. This must be quite terrifying for those right-wing Christians - it's as if Hitler was marching across Europe, and Chamberlain just wants to sit down with him for tea and crumpets. So, they ask, how can they convince the leaders of the free world that Islam poses a threat so serious that action must be taken? The answer seems obvious: Let the fanatics be their own undoing. Goad them into acts of violence so great that they can no longer be ignored, and so prove to everyone that there can be no possibility of a peaceful coexistance.
It's a good plan, too, because it really does prove their point. If even just making an obscure film insulting the religion is enough to spark off riots and murders around the world, then it does start to look like the multicultural dream isn't realistic. When the foundational ideals of one culture are an intolerable evil to another, how can they occupy the same space without conflict?
Just replace their bat with one that spans their entire side.
The problem isn't something crypto can solve. It comes down to an untrusted client. When a client reports 'My player just stabbed this other player' how can the other clients be sure this is what really happened, and the player isn't really using a hacked client to achieve superhuman precision in aiming or hit people from across the level? There are some techniques that can be used to make software much trickier to alter but, as long experience with copy-protection on games has shown, if the software is running locally then it can be modified somehow.
It's possible. That radiation has to come from somewhere - a sufficiently advanced nanotechnology could create bots that collect all the radioisotopes together into convenient lumps for disposal. If you've got tech that advanced though, you could probably radiation-proof humans anyway. In the more immediate future, biotech is probably a lot easier to engineer than nano: Make plants that collect the radioisotopes from soil and bioaccumulate. After a few years you'd have radiation-free soil, and some mid-level radioactive compost to dispose of instead.
This rather surprised me. Given that carbon has p-orbitals, and that those orbitals should be locked into position by being used to bond adjacent atoms, I'd have thought the non-spherical orbitals to be visible. I concude that even A-level chemistry textbooks lie.
Easily. Print them atom by atom. Just don't expect it to be fast.
I know exactly what the pinout will be.
Patented.
No. You never needed a propritary connector. Some docking station music players used the analog lines from the propritary connector, but the new 'lightning' connector doesn't even have those, and in any event they weren't required to play audio. They just reduced the cost of doing so a bit.
It doesn't break the video streaming, or if it did then it would be easy to modify the services to compensate. It also doesn't block games, providing you aren't trying to run a server. Now look at the rest... wow, it's like a list of things some ISPs *wish* they could break! Bittorrent and limewire? Those are the programs that let a small number of user suck up huge amounts of network capacity. VoIP? Half of those ISPs run a phone service too, and VoIP is letting people make phone calls for free. Doubley so for mobile internet. Running a server, or using a VPN? Those are business things - and businesses should be paying business rates.
Remember that the ideal internet user, from the ISPs perspective, is one who pays for top-tier services and then uses it to check email and so some light browsing.
Might have been refering to uranium. Australia has a lot of that.
Not really huge. There's only been one major nuclear power disaster, Chenobyl. The fear is more over possible disasters than actual disasters - the worst-case scenario for nuclear is very unlikely, but also very disasterous.
A planetary power grid would run into a few problems. Just look at the situation with the middle east right now, and how much the rest of the world invests into trying to keep favor and keep order so the oil flows. That same region is also ideal for solar: Near the equator, and very little cloud coverage to block the precious photons. Do you think Europe would be happy about depending on them for power? We're having enough worry about Russia's control of the gas supply.
There are some technological magic bullet possibilities. A true smart grid could make renewables much more practical, but that has technological and political difficulties too.
The plant took an earthquake *and* flooding, and yet still the radiation leakage into the surrounding area was negligable. Containment held, even if it did need a bit of improvised emergency cooling. That was on an old plant design - if it had been built to a more modern design, there would have been no need even for that. And yet if you watched the television coverage, it looked like Chenobyl II. There was more airtime given to that nuclear plant than to all the rest of Japan put together, so it is no surprise people were terrified. The media played-up the nuclear aspect, because nuclear means scarey and scarey means viewers. And viewers mean money.
Or, as your IP sees it: "Crap, we're out of IP addresses. How much will it cost to retrain our network team, reconfigure our network, test every model of every device and deal with the tech support cost when it inevitably causes compatibility issues? Holy craptacular megabucks. Screw it, they're all going on NAT, only those nasty p2p users and people using VoIP to avoid paying our extortionate phone call bills will be affected."
It needs an effective smart grid to work well. Some way for the turbines to shout 'Wind dropped, brace for shortage!' and air conditioning units and water heaters to take notice and postpone their duties for a little while until the wind picks up again.
And who gets to decide what information is 'false' or 'malicious?' Would you trust any authority with that power?
Tried that. It was called the CPSA, Content Protection System Architecture. An umbrella group which would combine many different forms of DRM together in a manner which provided end-to-end protection for media. Included in it was an watermarking technology - CPSA compliant devices (Which would include all media devices) that detected the watermark on an analog or unencrypted input would refuse to display anything, because there was no legitimate means by which the watermarked content should be leaving the all-encrypted CPSA domain and thus could be reasonably assumed to be pirate.
CPSA itsself largely fell apart, but some of the technologies which once formed part of it are still around. CSS and HDCP were designed to be part of the CPSA, and it did incorporate some preexisting technologies like Macrovision and CGMS for backwards compatibility purposes.
And many VNC clients include a screen-grabbing option.