500 years ago, Leonardo da Vinci already had a design for an ornithopter to carry a human. We also knew damn well that birds could fly, and we had no in-depth understanding of the mechanic of nature. That was barely garnering interest at the time.
We also communicated at the time as close to light speed, roughly, as we do now. Signal fires had been in use long before that: the message-carrier is light (the only thing that moves at light speed, really), and the delay is all introduced by the junctions (humans at the time).
Also, the "just because we haven't figured out how to overcome a well-studied physical limitation" is metaphysical bullshit, and it's disingenuous to compare things we didn't know how to do to things we have excellent reason to think are fundamentally impossible.
Travel faster than 0.1c would suggest fewer civilizations, yes? Hence "fewer than 10" includes travel faster than the stated speed, and they consider 0.1c a minimum for interstellar colonization.
As far as faster-than-light travel, while some scientists may think it's possible, that's a far cry from assuming that it is possible and that an advanced civilization will have it. There's little motivation to consider completely imaginary scientific principles and technologies in this kind of analysis.
If you'd read the person you responded to, you'd see that he specifically said that a cookie is a lesser evil than requiring you to make an account in order to preserve settings.
Of course, regardless of whether it's by login or by cookie, the settings have to be stored in a database of some sort, unless there are so few preferences that the preferences themselves are stored in a cookie.
a way of verifying software integrity [md5 at the least]
MD5 hasn't been a way of verifying software integrity for a while now. Microsoft would be doing the world a great disservice by enabling people to distribute software through a synaptic-like program with only md5 verification.
Last I checked, "works 90% of the time" is not the terminology actually used. Since what they're talking about is false-positive rate, they should use the term false-positive rate.
For commercial passenger aircraft, there's also a copilot. Both of them have substantially more training requirements than a person who wants to drive a car, and they're ostensibly focusing on the task. (Certainly they're communicating on the radio about the task.) They also have substantial electronic assistance in doing their jobs.
Easy -- they think people will be more likely to use Microsoft's HyperV if its Linux performance is better. They're in competition with other virtualization software makers. They can either release an appropriate Linux driver or tell HyperV users to have decreased Linux performance and functionality. Clearly they think the former is a better business deal. It doesn't really add a lot to Linux, since if you're in the market for virtualization, you probably aren't trying to decide if your guests will run Linux or Windows, but already have specific requirements.
I don't think LGPL buys them anything. If they're going to release it as open-source (which they have to if they want it incorporated in the Linux kernel), then they'd presumably want to be as little use to their competition as possible. Not competition as in Linux or Xen, but as in VMWare, etc. -- closed-source, commercial virtualization vendors. BSD-licensed code could be very reasonably put to use by their competitors.
It's called the Civil War, and the U.S. had a standing army before the 19th century (including the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War). No significant weapons control until the Southern states barred blacks from owning weapons in the antebellum.
All of which have kernel modules to allow host systems to run them faster. Virtual hardware has such an overhead, but the day of the Virtual machine virus is going to come sooner or later.
That really depends on her setup. Virtualized or paravirtualized hardware has an overhead. Hardware virtualization has substantially less. If I had to guess, Joanna is using Xen (most of her research uses Xen, at least). Linux on Xen can be either paravirt or hardware virtualization; Windows on Xen is only the latter, I think.
Also, I'm sure the day of the virtual machine virus will come -- after all, she wrote one of the first!
2) Even in the case of low level root kits, they still have to get to your system in the first place. That in general means they have to get downloaded form the net or transferred from a CD or flash drive. Guess what? A virus scanner in the OS can stop that. It can scan the program coming in, before it has a chance to run, and block it. Even if the program would set itself up on a level below what the scanner could detect, the scanner can notice it as it is coming in before it can execute and do that.
This is the malware arms race. The first entity to hit the system and know the second entity's tricks wins. Malware can completely gut antivirus. In theory, it can completely and undetectably emasculate it. (In reality, it doesn't.) Antivirus programs can detect malware and stop them -- provided they know what to look for. Knowing what to look for is harder than it sounds. You can use signature scanning to find really trivial attacks, or very fancy signature scanning to find less-trivial but still enumerated attacks. Only behavioral controls will stop novel attacks, and you need to know what behaviors to stop. Simply stopping anything that might possibly be used to get control the system will leave you with a nonfunctioning system.
Bear in mind that there's anywhere from a few days to a week, at least, before an antivirus database incorporates a new malware signature. If the malware can disable the antivirus (or its update), what's the risk in a one-week window?
Assume for the sake of argument that I think a reduction of CO2 emissions is important and a good idea (I do, basically) and that distance-based insurance premiums are a good idea (not sure).
Citing a reduction of CO2 emissions as a side effect of distance-based insurance premiums is still stupid and annoying. It's bad and they should feel bad for doing it. They are problems that make more sense to approach separately, since they have very little relation to one another.
I cover that in an ancestor post: it falls under "taking an entirely useless sense of the term 'average'".
The patently obvious fact that a file is uploaded as many times as it is downloaded is useless, because it gives you no information about how many times an individual person uploaded. In order to do that, you would have to assume that an individual had near-mean behavior, which for many P2P networks is certainly false.
"Pure leeching" is actually quite common in most non-BitTorrent P2P networks, including Kazaa, the only P2P network that matters in this case.
From a legal standpoint, the mean number of copies uploaded is completely useless, because it bears no real relation to how many copies an individual person uploaded.
Slashdot Mirror
500 years ago, Leonardo da Vinci already had a design for an ornithopter to carry a human. We also knew damn well that birds could fly, and we had no in-depth understanding of the mechanic of nature. That was barely garnering interest at the time.
We also communicated at the time as close to light speed, roughly, as we do now. Signal fires had been in use long before that: the message-carrier is light (the only thing that moves at light speed, really), and the delay is all introduced by the junctions (humans at the time).
Also, the "just because we haven't figured out how to overcome a well-studied physical limitation" is metaphysical bullshit, and it's disingenuous to compare things we didn't know how to do to things we have excellent reason to think are fundamentally impossible.
Travel faster than 0.1c would suggest fewer civilizations, yes? Hence "fewer than 10" includes travel faster than the stated speed, and they consider 0.1c a minimum for interstellar colonization.
As far as faster-than-light travel, while some scientists may think it's possible, that's a far cry from assuming that it is possible and that an advanced civilization will have it. There's little motivation to consider completely imaginary scientific principles and technologies in this kind of analysis.
Of course, many places in Europe sell you a 0,6 L beer.
Scientists use a different definition of resolution that is used in computer imagery. :-)
If you'd read the person you responded to, you'd see that he specifically said that a cookie is a lesser evil than requiring you to make an account in order to preserve settings.
Of course, regardless of whether it's by login or by cookie, the settings have to be stored in a database of some sort, unless there are so few preferences that the preferences themselves are stored in a cookie.
a way of verifying software integrity [md5 at the least]
MD5 hasn't been a way of verifying software integrity for a while now. Microsoft would be doing the world a great disservice by enabling people to distribute software through a synaptic-like program with only md5 verification.
Please do not simply press the "9" key until you get bored when it is more readable and more accurate to use words like "very accurate".
For example, it would be difficult to empirically measure the stated accuracy of your test, since it's inaccurate 1 time in 100 billion.
This message has been brought to you by the Society for the Elimination of Superfluous Quantification.
Last I checked, "works 90% of the time" is not the terminology actually used. Since what they're talking about is false-positive rate, they should use the term false-positive rate.
Unless, of course, you have the regions overlap.
Actually, researchers and federal agencies monitor WoW chat -- perhaps partly to catch things like this, but mostly for strange sociological studies.
Please do not write further articles about quantum computing. This one was both factually inaccurate and unreadable. :P
For commercial passenger aircraft, there's also a copilot. Both of them have substantially more training requirements than a person who wants to drive a car, and they're ostensibly focusing on the task. (Certainly they're communicating on the radio about the task.) They also have substantial electronic assistance in doing their jobs.
Easy -- they think people will be more likely to use Microsoft's HyperV if its Linux performance is better. They're in competition with other virtualization software makers. They can either release an appropriate Linux driver or tell HyperV users to have decreased Linux performance and functionality. Clearly they think the former is a better business deal. It doesn't really add a lot to Linux, since if you're in the market for virtualization, you probably aren't trying to decide if your guests will run Linux or Windows, but already have specific requirements.
I don't think LGPL buys them anything. If they're going to release it as open-source (which they have to if they want it incorporated in the Linux kernel), then they'd presumably want to be as little use to their competition as possible. Not competition as in Linux or Xen, but as in VMWare, etc. -- closed-source, commercial virtualization vendors. BSD-licensed code could be very reasonably put to use by their competitors.
It's called the Civil War, and the U.S. had a standing army before the 19th century (including the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War). No significant weapons control until the Southern states barred blacks from owning weapons in the antebellum.
All of which have kernel modules to allow host systems to run them faster. Virtual hardware has such an overhead, but the day of the Virtual machine virus is going to come sooner or later.
That really depends on her setup. Virtualized or paravirtualized hardware has an overhead. Hardware virtualization has substantially less. If I had to guess, Joanna is using Xen (most of her research uses Xen, at least). Linux on Xen can be either paravirt or hardware virtualization; Windows on Xen is only the latter, I think.
Also, I'm sure the day of the virtual machine virus will come -- after all, she wrote one of the first!
2) Even in the case of low level root kits, they still have to get to your system in the first place. That in general means they have to get downloaded form the net or transferred from a CD or flash drive. Guess what? A virus scanner in the OS can stop that. It can scan the program coming in, before it has a chance to run, and block it. Even if the program would set itself up on a level below what the scanner could detect, the scanner can notice it as it is coming in before it can execute and do that.
This is the malware arms race. The first entity to hit the system and know the second entity's tricks wins. Malware can completely gut antivirus. In theory, it can completely and undetectably emasculate it. (In reality, it doesn't.) Antivirus programs can detect malware and stop them -- provided they know what to look for. Knowing what to look for is harder than it sounds. You can use signature scanning to find really trivial attacks, or very fancy signature scanning to find less-trivial but still enumerated attacks. Only behavioral controls will stop novel attacks, and you need to know what behaviors to stop. Simply stopping anything that might possibly be used to get control the system will leave you with a nonfunctioning system.
Bear in mind that there's anywhere from a few days to a week, at least, before an antivirus database incorporates a new malware signature. If the malware can disable the antivirus (or its update), what's the risk in a one-week window?
Actually, depending on your virus scanner, it stops about 50-90% of attacks out there. Joanna's setup is almost certainly more effective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella#Adaptations
Who's been sued by Disney?
Absolutely not. There is no validity in assuming the mean simply because you lack information.
This is not only certainly true in court, but it's absolutely true in science (as one example of "out of court").
Assume for the sake of argument that I think a reduction of CO2 emissions is important and a good idea (I do, basically) and that distance-based insurance premiums are a good idea (not sure).
Citing a reduction of CO2 emissions as a side effect of distance-based insurance premiums is still stupid and annoying. It's bad and they should feel bad for doing it. They are problems that make more sense to approach separately, since they have very little relation to one another.
I cover that in an ancestor post: it falls under "taking an entirely useless sense of the term 'average'".
The patently obvious fact that a file is uploaded as many times as it is downloaded is useless, because it gives you no information about how many times an individual person uploaded. In order to do that, you would have to assume that an individual had near-mean behavior, which for many P2P networks is certainly false.
"Pure leeching" is actually quite common in most non-BitTorrent P2P networks, including Kazaa, the only P2P network that matters in this case.
From a legal standpoint, the mean number of copies uploaded is completely useless, because it bears no real relation to how many copies an individual person uploaded.
Common assumption: P2P networks are all like BitTorrent.
Applicability to this case: none? Tenenbaum is in court for sharing files on Kazaa.
May not work for satellite, but it works fine for cable. Component video outputs HD.