>an honest government research institute getting credit for their work.
Did they speak up during the standards process? 802.11(mumble) was hardly a secret or obscure event.
S/MIME has been around a long time too
on
PGP Is 15 Years Old
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
And it has not killed the PGP market or even gotten major traction. What percentage of your legitimate incoming email is S/MIME signed? Even from your bank?
Also, bear in mind that CA-based PKI is a strict subset of web of trust.
The lesson is that crypto goes nowhere in the market unless it's as transparent as TLS.
>can not or do not want to maintain a web of trust
PKI shouldn't be difficult, but from what I've seen it does seem to be beyond human comprehension.
It's a radio signal going to an antenna. The antenna is way shorter than a wavelength, it radiates very inefficiently with almost all the signal getting sucked back into the antenna when the current changes direction, but "almost" is not "all". There would be millions of these devices, and each would be moving several watts around. Only a tiny fraction of those megawatts will be radiated, but remember that there are ham radio operators who make a hobby of talking over thousands of miles with less than a watt of radiated power.
Using the US Supreme Court "community standards"
on
Internet Only 1% Porn
·
· Score: 1
The definition of porn depends on where you are, In Saudi Arabia it might be pictures of women without veils.
>all browsers give the user more than adequate control over their cookies.
Firefox 1.0x had this exactly right. In the cookie inspection dialog box, where you need to delete a large number of cookies while preserving a few important ones, they allowed multiple selection (control-click). Sometimes you'd want to add a permanent block on deleted cookies. Firefox even exposed their configuration setting of "and don't come back!" in a checkbox so that you could block cookies from a site at the same time you were looking at them.
Firefox 1.5 lost all this functionality.
Is there an extension to get me the same effects that (A) unlike some extensions, actually works, and (B) unlike some extensions, doesn't leak memory to the point of paralyzing my system?
"Any large, complex system that actually works has evolved from a smaller, simpler system that works".
There are lots of accurate insightful comments in this thread about the mistakes on this project. Above and beyond all of those, trying to do something this size in one bang is a near guarantee of failure.
And often not. Some of that Eastern European talent was first rate.
Some of what looked like terrible acting wasn't. Sinclair seemed aimless, wooden, forced -- and that was a precise and workmanlike portrayal of the character, a purposeless man who wasn't sure why he was alive, was numbed by PTSD and survivor guilt, and pushing himself through the motions of being a diplomat. G'Kar didn't seem like much in the first season, but when the character grew enough to give Andreas Katsulas scope for his ability, he shone.
When I saw the first season in reruns after having seen the rest of the series, I could have sworn the acting and writing had improved between the first showing and the rerun. Knowing the context made that much difference. Dialog that seems unimportant the first time around becomes poignant or prophetic in hindsight.
It's a great nerd show. Little things are done right, like space fighters that fire thrusters when they turn instead of swooping like airplanes. Then the overall structure is a single intricate unit, with a coherence and scale that could compete with some of the classics of the software world.
The characters are fully realized people but it takes a while to see them defined.
Straczynski summarized the series as being about "choices and consequences". That's invisible at the scale of a single episode.
The Monbiot article explains o The textbook Stefan-Boltzmann equation doesn't apply to a reflecting body o The original article leaves out time-delayed effects o The original article compares a graph of average worldwide temperature to a graph of European temperatures
>nothing to see
Plenty to see, even though it's not a point by point rebuttal. A point by point rebuttal would have mentioned Monckton's claim that scientists were predicting global cooling in the 70s. The facts are readily available and even summarized on the web at the global cooling bibliography.
The Guardian article said NASA scientist Hansen was wrong in a forecast.
Well, there's what Hansen said, and there's what got reported. The meta-debunker went back to primary sources and found:
He presented three possible scenarios to the US Senate - high, medium and low. Both the high and low scenarios, he explained, were unlikely to materialise. The middle one was "the most plausible". As it happens, the middle scenario was almost exactly right. He did not claim, under any scenario, that sea levels would rise by several feet by 2000. But a climatologist called Patrick Michaels took the graph from Hansen's paper, erased the medium and low scenarios and - in testimony to Congress - presented the high curve as Hansen's prediction for climate change. A memo sent in July from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, a US company whose power is largely supplied by coal, revealed that Michaels has long been funded by electricity companies.
Both. One of the reasons we need computer models. Especially since warmer climates speed up some processes that *absorb* CO2 as well as speeding up processes that release CO2.
CO2's causal role is simple phsyics. The numbers on feedback have been hard to pin down. But there's not any question that *other things being equal* more CO2 means a warmer planet on average.
>Humans are unlikely to be the cause:
We are, indeed, responsible for only a small percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The amount that was there before we started is responsible for keeping the oceans from freezing. A small change to that large an effect is worth thinking about.
"I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," he said during a visit to Denmark en route to Gleneagles.
Artificial magnetic shielding is surprisingly economical. Big weak fields do a fine job deflecting charged particles, and you can generate them with a superconducting cable around the rim of a crater. Polar craters (where the ice might be) are plenty cold enough for today's high temperature superconductors.
You'd gain only a little, since the hard part of reaching orbit is getting up to orbital speed. There'd be some efficiency gain from not having to punch through atmosphere and a little more from optimizing nozzle design without worrying about sea level backpressure, but nothing huge.
In exchange, you'd have all the safety issues of carrying explosives on the most expensive structure ever built.
You started with late Heinlein and sound like someone who would prefer early Heinlein.
Pick anything published before Stranger in a Strange Land. Citizen of the Galaxy would be a good start. Revolt in 2100 is a well-realized htough not groundbreaking look at overthrowing a dictatorship.
For ideas, Waldo and Magic Incorporated. For humanity, The Door Into Summer.
Coal is mostly just carbon, 92-98% in the case of anthracite. There will be some hydrocarbons left over from its organic origins but they're a minority. Asphalt is an example of a solid hydrocarbon.
>NOx is made when atmosphere nitrogen is held at too high a temperature for too long.
Thank you for setting that straight, by the way. You don't even need fuel: lightning storms generate enough nitrates to be a noticeable source of fertilizer.
The big problem the US has with education is that people haven't agreed on a problem statement.
If there's a standardized curriculum (which most industrialized countries have); if there's a core set of knowledge and skills that everyone thinks are indispensable for a citizen; if there's a standardized test that accurately measures those -- then the test is simply a necessary feedback mechanism and "teaching to the test" simply means concentrating on the basics.
Every one of those "if"s has whole books arguing the contrary, of course.
>They also hated to be individual, or singled out.
It wasn't Ghana, but I read one teacher's account of teaching students from a culture with a similar feature.
She split the class into small groups which would then pick a spokesperson to deliver their report or answer questions. The kids would freeze up if they felt alone but thrived as part of a team.
Slashdot Mirror
>an honest government research institute getting credit for their work.
Did they speak up during the standards process? 802.11(mumble) was hardly a secret or obscure event.
And it has not killed the PGP market or even gotten major traction. What percentage of your legitimate incoming email is S/MIME signed? Even from your bank?
Also, bear in mind that CA-based PKI is a strict subset of web of trust.
The lesson is that crypto goes nowhere in the market unless it's as transparent as TLS.
>can not or do not want to maintain a web of trust
PKI shouldn't be difficult, but from what I've seen it does seem to be beyond human comprehension.
>all matter, (including elements of the human nervous system), resonates at specific frequencies.
What is the inductance of those elements of the nervous system? What is their capacitance? Answer those questions and you know the resonant frequency.
What is their electrical resistance? If they're not superconductors then the resonance is broader and weaker as the resistance goes up.
It is accurate knowledge that is liberating.
that's only a first approximation.
It's a radio signal going to an antenna. The antenna is way shorter than a wavelength, it radiates very inefficiently with almost all the signal getting sucked back into the antenna when the current changes direction, but "almost" is not "all". There would be millions of these devices, and each would be moving several watts around. Only a tiny fraction of those megawatts will be radiated, but remember that there are ham radio operators who make a hobby of talking over thousands of miles with less than a watt of radiated power.
The definition of porn depends on where you are, In Saudi Arabia it might be pictures of women without veils.
>all browsers give the user more than adequate control over their cookies.
Firefox 1.0x had this exactly right. In the cookie inspection dialog box, where you need to delete a large number of cookies while preserving a few important ones, they allowed multiple selection (control-click). Sometimes you'd want to add a permanent block on deleted cookies. Firefox even exposed their configuration setting of "and don't come back!" in a checkbox so that you could block cookies from a site at the same time you were looking at them.
Firefox 1.5 lost all this functionality.
Is there an extension to get me the same effects that (A) unlike some extensions, actually works, and (B) unlike some extensions, doesn't leak memory to the point of paralyzing my system?
Snopes says not quite. Though the lesson of the story is true and profound.
"Any large, complex system that actually works has evolved from a smaller, simpler system that works".
There are lots of accurate insightful comments in this thread about the mistakes on this project. Above and beyond all of those, trying to do something this size in one bang is a near guarantee of failure.
The usual figures for Medicare vs. private sector overhead are 2% and 20-25% respectively.
One Medicare overhead analysis disputed this, estimating 5.2% for Medicare with some hidden costs accounted for, and 16.7% for the private sector.
This seems to be an exception to the usually reliable rule that government is less efficient than the private sector.
>Well, the acting was often terrible.
And often not. Some of that Eastern European talent was first rate.
Some of what looked like terrible acting wasn't. Sinclair seemed aimless, wooden, forced -- and that was a precise and workmanlike portrayal of the character, a purposeless man who wasn't sure why he was alive, was numbed by PTSD and survivor guilt, and pushing himself through the motions of being a diplomat. G'Kar didn't seem like much in the first season, but when the character grew enough to give Andreas Katsulas scope for his ability, he shone.
The more you watch, the better it gets.
When I saw the first season in reruns after having seen the rest of the series, I could have sworn the acting and writing had improved between the first showing and the rerun. Knowing the context made that much difference. Dialog that seems unimportant the first time around becomes poignant or prophetic in hindsight.
It's a great nerd show. Little things are done right, like space fighters that fire thrusters when they turn instead of swooping like airplanes. Then the overall structure is a single intricate unit, with a coherence and scale that could compete with some of the classics of the software world.
The characters are fully realized people but it takes a while to see them defined.
Straczynski summarized the series as being about "choices and consequences". That's invisible at the scale of a single episode.
It's worth putting on your Netflix list.
Hey, the parent to this post used the words "Microsoft" and "robust" in the same sentence.
The Monbiot article explains
o The textbook Stefan-Boltzmann equation doesn't apply to a reflecting body
o The original article leaves out time-delayed effects
o The original article compares a graph of average worldwide temperature to a graph of European temperatures
>nothing to see
Plenty to see, even though it's not a point by point rebuttal. A point by point rebuttal would have mentioned Monckton's claim that scientists were predicting global cooling in the 70s. The facts are readily available and even summarized on the web at the global cooling bibliography.
Well, there's what Hansen said, and there's what got reported. The meta-debunker went back to primary sources and found:
>Effect, not cause.
Both. One of the reasons we need computer models. Especially since warmer climates speed up some processes that *absorb* CO2 as well as speeding up processes that release CO2.
CO2's causal role is simple phsyics. The numbers on feedback have been hard to pin down. But there's not any question that *other things being equal* more CO2 means a warmer planet on average.
>Humans are unlikely to be the cause:
We are, indeed, responsible for only a small percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The amount that was there before we started is responsible for keeping the oceans from freezing. A small change to that large an effect is worth thinking about.
From the Financial Times, July 7 2006:
"I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," he said during a visit to Denmark en route to Gleneagles.
Artificial magnetic shielding is surprisingly economical. Big weak fields do a fine job deflecting charged particles, and you can generate them with a superconducting cable around the rim of a crater. Polar craters (where the ice might be) are plenty cold enough for today's high temperature superconductors.
>I don't know how this would translate for people going through the area
No acute radiation sickness but definite elevated cancer risk.
You'd gain only a little, since the hard part of reaching orbit is getting up to orbital speed. There'd be some efficiency gain from not having to punch through atmosphere and a little more from optimizing nozzle design without worrying about sea level backpressure, but nothing huge.
In exchange, you'd have all the safety issues of carrying explosives on the most expensive structure ever built.
You started with late Heinlein and sound like someone who would prefer early Heinlein.
Pick anything published before Stranger in a Strange Land. Citizen of the Galaxy would be a good start. Revolt in 2100 is a well-realized htough not groundbreaking look at overthrowing a dictatorship.
For ideas, Waldo and Magic Incorporated. For humanity, The Door Into Summer.
Unless you really want to use fission for vehicle propulsion.
You could have battery-powered cars recharged from nuclear electric plants, but that wouldn't help much with air or sea transportation.
Imagine a coal plant on a cold day.
The water vapor condenses.
What happens to it? Does it fall down as rain, or does it drift away in a fog of microscopic particles?
Mercury is way heavier, but if the particles are small enough then Brownian motion will keep them suspended.
>Coal is a hydrocarbon.
Coal is mostly just carbon, 92-98% in the case of anthracite. There will be some hydrocarbons left over from its organic origins but they're a minority. Asphalt is an example of a solid hydrocarbon.
>NOx is made when atmosphere nitrogen is held at too high a temperature for too long.
Thank you for setting that straight, by the way. You don't even need fuel: lightning storms generate enough nitrates to be a noticeable source of fertilizer.
is not *necessarily* bad.
The big problem the US has with education is that people haven't agreed on a problem statement.
If there's a standardized curriculum (which most industrialized countries have); if there's a core set of knowledge and skills that everyone thinks are indispensable for a citizen; if there's a standardized test that accurately measures those -- then the test is simply a necessary feedback mechanism and "teaching to the test" simply means concentrating on the basics.
Every one of those "if"s has whole books arguing the contrary, of course.
>They also hated to be individual, or singled out.
It wasn't Ghana, but I read one teacher's account of teaching students from a culture with a similar feature.
She split the class into small groups which would then pick a spokesperson to deliver their report or answer questions. The kids would freeze up if they felt alone but thrived as part of a team.