While I'm hardly defending the quality of their OS design, a lot of what antivirus software does a) can't be fully remedied by good OS design b) is made much more powerful by being low-level.
AV software really needs to be as low-level as possible, to prevent malware from duping it. (Although mostly AV software just catches the common, dumb malware.)
One of the things you really want to do is determine, "If I run this code / visit this website / open this document, will it perform actions that I am privileged to do, but don't actually intend to happen?"
I mean that the planets are on an inward-spiral orbit. While ideally they would keep perfect elliptical orbits, solar wind pushes them outward and drag caused by the matter in space pushes them inward (well, decreases their velocity, which causes them to fall inward). I forget the rate for this, but I do recall it's so slow that everything else interesting in the solar system (e.g., the Sun entering the later stages of life) will happen first.
Democracy generally only requires plurality and not majority. (Though, I suppose, if there are only two choices, those are the same.)
It strikes me that in representative democracy, the difficulty of not electing idiots increases as the democratic pool increases. Your ability to influence federal elections (even if they didn't favor whoever is pseudo-arbitrarily chosen by the Democratic and Republican parties) is enormously smaller than your ability to influence local elections. It seems this is the big benefit of small federal government -- in order to have a system that more strongly reflects your desires, you want more power in the hands of the part of government you're more capable of influencing.
No, you're apparently saying that. I'm less pedantic about the definition of delusional.
How is "believing in" causality-breaking time travel (travel back in time), which is counter to many well-tested scientific principles, substantially different from "believing in" angels?
I think you should also look up the definition of "paradigm". Tested principles are not simply habits of thinking -- regardless of how much you "believe" that scientists are "probably wrong".
It depends. Delusion generally requires that you believe something despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. So, a normal person would be certain X is not true, yet you believe it anyway.
Generally "believing in angels" is believing in something for which there is no proof. Nor, however, is there proof to the contrary.
Now, believing that you have seen an angel, or that God talks to you, et cetera, is different.
One problem is that it takes temperature-based information and computes ice melt based on thermal transfer. As you might guess from this, they then have to model the heat reservoir of which you're measuring the temperature. They claim their heat reservoir is the atmosphere. It's not -- the Earth is thermally connected to atmosphere and exchanges heat with it. Connecting temperature and thermal transfer in this way is hokey at best, since it requires you to model a thermal reservoir you have limited knowledge about. It's best to approach the problem from a different angle. Instead, they choose to use a terribly wrong figure and go from there.
Many of the statements belie a flawed understanding of what's going on. They do not account for thermal expansion of seawater on the assumption that an ice-water mixture does not heat up until all the ice is melted. This is true if all the water and ice are in good thermal contact. It's also true that all the ice must be at 0 C if they are in good thermal contact, else it will absorb heat from the water and freeze it until they both reach 0 C. This is far from the case -- they point out that much ice is below 0 C. It's trivial to show that at least part of the world's oceans are above 0 C. The ocean-ice system is not a simple, single-temperature mixture. Nor, for that matter, is ice that is in the water the major factor in rising sea levels. You might expect free-floating ice to be in thermal equilibrium with nearby water, but free-floating ice will not (substantially) alter ocean levels when it melts. Land-bound ice is the major contributor. As its name suggests, its contact with the ocean is much more limited. (To be fair, they seem to recognize this, but not its thermodynamic implications.)
There are many things wrong with their analysis. They don't even have the knowledge or professionalism to use appropriate terminology, which calls into question their capacity to actually make reasonable calculations. For example, "...despite the fact the sun has been replenishing the number of kJ available to melt ice throughout that period."
It's sort of cheating -- just recreate the oven on top of the range. The range is just fire, and simple ovens were just massive boxes next to or on top of fire. (Modern ovens are less-massive boxes with a controlled fire on the inside.)
In fact, modern ovens aren't really that great, so often bakers will create an oven inside the oven with ceramic. (There's also a good bread recipe that involves baking inside a dutch oven inside an oven.)
"Moving electrical charges" and "electrical effects" suggests you're talking about Maxwell-law electrodynamics. There are many other sources of electromagnetic radiation, including atomic state transitions (e.g., fluorescence) and particle interactions (e.g., radioactive decay, particle annihilation, etc.).
Saying that electromagnetic radiation is produced by "electrical" effects is something of a tautology, as electromagnetic radiation is, as you might guess, an electromagnetic effect. However, it's well-known that there are ways of producing photons other than Maxwell electrodynamics.
It's called "antiquity". While empiricism is quite old, "science" is generally considered to start with the Scientific Revolution of the 16th century (or in the middle ages if you use a more-permissive definition).
Simply trying to understand the world around you is not science.
No, those colonies have neither taxation nor representation. They are offered the option of representation, but only if they pay taxes. The fact that they have no representation shows their priorities.
They mean that you can't challenge whether the data was acquired in a forensically-sound manner. If the software does any determination of if the image is illicit or not, that's undoubtedly not valid in court. However, the system is to write the illicit images to a removable medium (CD-R) and verify that they are illicit through standard procedures.
It looks like it's just a tool for previewing media on the drive while maintaining forensic integrity. Certainly something a person trained in computer forensics could do without the tool, but this is targeted at people with minimal training, it seems.
Of course there are plenty of easy anti-forensic measures, but the goal is probably to cut down the time spent per case on the low-hanging fruit (which is the majority of cases) to reduce backlog.
Your point is more clear worded this way -- I think you are correct. Their method eliminates some bias, but not all. Of course, I'm guessing based on the article, as I haven't read the actual research. I doubt I would call it "conclusive research".
No, they attempt. Without looking at the actual study, I couldn't say if they really succeeded. As you point out, I doubt they were successful, but it's an improvement.
Slashdot Mirror
While I'm hardly defending the quality of their OS design, a lot of what antivirus software does
a) can't be fully remedied by good OS design
b) is made much more powerful by being low-level.
AV software really needs to be as low-level as possible, to prevent malware from duping it. (Although mostly AV software just catches the common, dumb malware.)
One of the things you really want to do is determine, "If I run this code / visit this website / open this document, will it perform actions that I am privileged to do, but don't actually intend to happen?"
I mean that the planets are on an inward-spiral orbit. While ideally they would keep perfect elliptical orbits, solar wind pushes them outward and drag caused by the matter in space pushes them inward (well, decreases their velocity, which causes them to fall inward). I forget the rate for this, but I do recall it's so slow that everything else interesting in the solar system (e.g., the Sun entering the later stages of life) will happen first.
The planets are getting closer to the sun, but not nearly fast enough to be interesting.
Democracy generally only requires plurality and not majority. (Though, I suppose, if there are only two choices, those are the same.)
It strikes me that in representative democracy, the difficulty of not electing idiots increases as the democratic pool increases. Your ability to influence federal elections (even if they didn't favor whoever is pseudo-arbitrarily chosen by the Democratic and Republican parties) is enormously smaller than your ability to influence local elections. It seems this is the big benefit of small federal government -- in order to have a system that more strongly reflects your desires, you want more power in the hands of the part of government you're more capable of influencing.
No, you're apparently saying that. I'm less pedantic about the definition of delusional.
How is "believing in" causality-breaking time travel (travel back in time), which is counter to many well-tested scientific principles, substantially different from "believing in" angels?
I think you should also look up the definition of "paradigm". Tested principles are not simply habits of thinking -- regardless of how much you "believe" that scientists are "probably wrong".
Both relativity and thermodynamics bar information traveling from future to present.
That one was easy.
It depends. Delusion generally requires that you believe something despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. So, a normal person would be certain X is not true, yet you believe it anyway.
Generally "believing in angels" is believing in something for which there is no proof. Nor, however, is there proof to the contrary.
Now, believing that you have seen an angel, or that God talks to you, et cetera, is different.
No.
One problem is that it takes temperature-based information and computes ice melt based on thermal transfer. As you might guess from this, they then have to model the heat reservoir of which you're measuring the temperature. They claim their heat reservoir is the atmosphere. It's not -- the Earth is thermally connected to atmosphere and exchanges heat with it. Connecting temperature and thermal transfer in this way is hokey at best, since it requires you to model a thermal reservoir you have limited knowledge about. It's best to approach the problem from a different angle. Instead, they choose to use a terribly wrong figure and go from there.
Many of the statements belie a flawed understanding of what's going on. They do not account for thermal expansion of seawater on the assumption that an ice-water mixture does not heat up until all the ice is melted. This is true if all the water and ice are in good thermal contact. It's also true that all the ice must be at 0 C if they are in good thermal contact, else it will absorb heat from the water and freeze it until they both reach 0 C. This is far from the case -- they point out that much ice is below 0 C. It's trivial to show that at least part of the world's oceans are above 0 C. The ocean-ice system is not a simple, single-temperature mixture. Nor, for that matter, is ice that is in the water the major factor in rising sea levels. You might expect free-floating ice to be in thermal equilibrium with nearby water, but free-floating ice will not (substantially) alter ocean levels when it melts. Land-bound ice is the major contributor. As its name suggests, its contact with the ocean is much more limited. (To be fair, they seem to recognize this, but not its thermodynamic implications.)
There are many things wrong with their analysis. They don't even have the knowledge or professionalism to use appropriate terminology, which calls into question their capacity to actually make reasonable calculations. For example, "...despite the fact the sun has been replenishing the number of kJ available to melt ice throughout that period."
That calculator is doing it wrong, and the web page was clearly written by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
It's sort of cheating -- just recreate the oven on top of the range. The range is just fire, and simple ovens were just massive boxes next to or on top of fire. (Modern ovens are less-massive boxes with a controlled fire on the inside.)
In fact, modern ovens aren't really that great, so often bakers will create an oven inside the oven with ceramic. (There's also a good bread recipe that involves baking inside a dutch oven inside an oven.)
The top part is a range. The baking part is an oven. The entity as a whole is a stove.
Of course, you could also bake on the range, but that's not as easy as just figuring out which part is the stove.
It's probably also cheaper to buy one from a former part of the USSR than to actually dig up one lost in Greenland.
"Moving electrical charges" and "electrical effects" suggests you're talking about Maxwell-law electrodynamics. There are many other sources of electromagnetic radiation, including atomic state transitions (e.g., fluorescence) and particle interactions (e.g., radioactive decay, particle annihilation, etc.).
Saying that electromagnetic radiation is produced by "electrical" effects is something of a tautology, as electromagnetic radiation is, as you might guess, an electromagnetic effect. However, it's well-known that there are ways of producing photons other than Maxwell electrodynamics.
This just in: after discovering some facts, scientists continue to study thing, and discover more facts!
Believing whatever overeager reporters with secondhand information tell you is what leads to confusion, not experts.
It's called "antiquity". While empiricism is quite old, "science" is generally considered to start with the Scientific Revolution of the 16th century (or in the middle ages if you use a more-permissive definition).
Simply trying to understand the world around you is not science.
To the extent you can find the mass of blue.
Mathematics isn't science. Yes, science and technology are intrinsically linked. That doesn't excuse confusing the two.
So you're saying he confuses science and technology, then?
Science can neither backfire nor directly kill people -- only technology can.
Actually, both of those predate science, and have not been consensus for over two thousand years.
No, those colonies have neither taxation nor representation. They are offered the option of representation, but only if they pay taxes. The fact that they have no representation shows their priorities.
They mean that you can't challenge whether the data was acquired in a forensically-sound manner. If the software does any determination of if the image is illicit or not, that's undoubtedly not valid in court. However, the system is to write the illicit images to a removable medium (CD-R) and verify that they are illicit through standard procedures.
It looks like it's just a tool for previewing media on the drive while maintaining forensic integrity. Certainly something a person trained in computer forensics could do without the tool, but this is targeted at people with minimal training, it seems.
Of course there are plenty of easy anti-forensic measures, but the goal is probably to cut down the time spent per case on the low-hanging fruit (which is the majority of cases) to reduce backlog.
None of the DoD computer security folk I've worked with use such a broad classification for attacks.
Your point is more clear worded this way -- I think you are correct. Their method eliminates some bias, but not all. Of course, I'm guessing based on the article, as I haven't read the actual research. I doubt I would call it "conclusive research".
No, they attempt. Without looking at the actual study, I couldn't say if they really succeeded. As you point out, I doubt they were successful, but it's an improvement.