In the IEEE article, it was stated that the cathode problem has not yet been solved. Can you elaborate on this? Were the lab experiments conducted without a cathode?
And from that what conclusion are you going to draw?
I wouldn't draw any conclusion from it except that there wasn't any significant trend in OHC over that five year period as per the Argo network. One caveat would be that there could be instrumentation/analytical errors. Another is that OHC could be increasing with a superimposed cyclical pattern and that this period measured the peak to trough of that cycle.
We'll have a clearer picture in another 20-30 years.
Hi. I have a very stupid question for someone working in the field of entanglement.
Spin is measured as up or down, but presumably the spin is actually at some angle in between. So the up or down measurement is rounding the actually spin. Is the resulting rounding error of any significance? Is the accumulation of rounding errors on multiple measurements of any significance? Or, as is most likely, is this a nonsensical question?
In Canada, the RCMP's Threat and Risk Assessment (TRA) for Information Technology is a popular approach. It categorizes threats according to impact (grave, serious, less serious) and likelihood (high, medium, low) and prioritizes the threats from 1 to 9. Here's the link to the guide:
This approach is process oriented and not focused on specific technologies. The date on the guide is 1994 and it is still in common use, so it has stood the test of time.
I once attended a TRA workshop and the instructor was in favor of a "keep it simple" approach. He cited the complexity of other approaches as being unnecessary, unproductive, uncomprehendible and unsellable. ROI wasn't used to justify the implementation of safeguards.
If ROI is necessary, then you will have to estimate the future cash outlays for safeguard implementation and the future savings from the increased security. The ROI is the discount rate at which the net present value of these outlays and savings is zero. Estimating cash outlays should be fairly objective, whereas estimating future savings would be assumption based. These assumptions would have to be believable.
Alternatively, you could demonstrate that the minimum ROI criteria will be met by stating that the safeguard will provide "at least" a certain amount of savings. Either way you won't be held accountable for achieving these actual savings as they can't be measured. You could, however, be held accountable for future security breaches. That's why a TRA approach that is consensus based is useful from a CYA perspective.
MSN Search vs Google: Results for "linux"
on
MSN Search Roundup
·
· Score: 1
I remember seeing the documentary (probably one of the Cringley PBS specials) where the person typing the login thought it was ironic that the first internet message was 'lo'. Kinda like how the English English say 'hello'... Or like the old joke...
Q: What did the Englishman say when he found his wife in bed with three men?
"Interesting how science and philosophy intersects at times."
Remind me... what does the "Ph" in PhD stand for?
I liked the series. It raised some interesting questions in me wee lil'ol mind. To start, are these stings the most basic unit of physics or is there some other underlying principle beneath them? For some reason I have the feeling that physics is something like those Russian dolls that keep having smaller ones embedded within.
Another question... Why 11 demensions? Is this just the number that is needed until we need more? Why not an infinite number? Do we even have the math that can handle this?
It also seems that the smaller the object we want to observe, the more energy that is needed. At some point won't we be confined to philosophy? Or will we always be able to deduce whats happening beneath by what bubbles to the surface?
Given that I suck at physics and math, philosophy is all I will ever have.
Well... back to my regularly scheduled Friday night activity... beer.
There's probably a good chance that this person can be tracked. It's probably just a matter of checking the logs for http://slashdot.org/submit.pl or an email to micheal@@slashdot.org. Unless, of course, the submitter admins the logs.
On a very simplistic level it seems that the http protocol is:
What - path/object in URL
Where - host:port
hoW - method (get, put, post...)
Perhaps we need another three W's:
Who - public keys
When - expiry date
Why - in response to X
The who, when, and why could be used at the network border to allow authorized responses to travel through at some later date. This may resolve the issues identified.
Don't put to much faith in digital signatures ability to identify the human user of a computer. Basically all a signature does is guarantee that the user had access to the signature, not that they are legitimate owner of that signature. In a court of law, the signer can still repudiate said traffic.
My experiences over the past two years (in New Brunswick)
1. X-ray of right ankle (slash with Hockey stick)
2. X-ray of Ribs (run over by Sea-Doo)
3. Stitches in lip (hockey puck)
4. X-ray on left ankle (stepped on baseball bat)
The initial assessments were done by the triage nurse within 15 minutes of arrival. Average total time, about 3-4 hours, probably because I was on the low priority list.
A little slow, but I wouldn't expect to save any more than about 4 hours per year in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
In the IEEE article, it was stated that the cathode problem has not yet been solved. Can you elaborate on this? Were the lab experiments conducted without a cathode?
Flamebait? I was thinking funny, but maybe my sense of the ha ha's is different.
And a fourth that it was Al Gore who reinvented the universe.
And from that what conclusion are you going to draw?
I wouldn't draw any conclusion from it except that there wasn't any significant trend in OHC over that five year period as per the Argo network. One caveat would be that there could be instrumentation/analytical errors. Another is that OHC could be increasing with a superimposed cyclical pattern and that this period measured the peak to trough of that cycle.
We'll have a clearer picture in another 20-30 years.
Except Ocean Heat Content, as measured by the Argo network, did not show any significant trend for the period 2004-2008.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/comment-on-the-skeptical-scientist-weblog-regarding-their-post-pielke-sr-and-scientific-equivocation-dont-beat-around-the-bush-roger/
Hi. I have a very stupid question for someone working in the field of entanglement.
Spin is measured as up or down, but presumably the spin is actually at some angle in between. So the up or down measurement is rounding the actually spin. Is the resulting rounding error of any significance? Is the accumulation of rounding errors on multiple measurements of any significance? Or, as is most likely, is this a nonsensical question?
Thanks
In Canada, the RCMP's Threat and Risk Assessment (TRA) for Information Technology is a popular approach. It categorizes threats according to impact (grave, serious, less serious) and likelihood (high, medium, low) and prioritizes the threats from 1 to 9. Here's the link to the guide:
. htm
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/tsb/pubs/it_sec/index_e
This approach is process oriented and not focused on specific technologies. The date on the guide is 1994 and it is still in common use, so it has stood the test of time.
I once attended a TRA workshop and the instructor was in favor of a "keep it simple" approach. He cited the complexity of other approaches as being unnecessary, unproductive, uncomprehendible and unsellable. ROI wasn't used to justify the implementation of safeguards.
If ROI is necessary, then you will have to estimate the future cash outlays for safeguard implementation and the future savings from the increased security. The ROI is the discount rate at which the net present value of these outlays and savings is zero. Estimating cash outlays should be fairly objective, whereas estimating future savings would be assumption based. These assumptions would have to be believable.
Alternatively, you could demonstrate that the minimum ROI criteria will be met by stating that the safeguard will provide "at least" a certain amount of savings. Either way you won't be held accountable for achieving these actual savings as they can't be measured. You could, however, be held accountable for future security breaches. That's why a TRA approach that is consensus based is useful from a CYA perspective.
MSN Search:
/ m /r g/i se-linux-it.com/t p://www.linux-talk.com/
t tp://www.redhat.com/t p://www.linuxjournal.com/u x.com/. org/. org/
http://www.linux.org/
http://www.linuxbase.org
http://www.linux.com/
http://www.linuxlinks.co
http://linuxgazette.net/
http://www.colinux.o
http://www.linux-usb.org/
http://www.enterpr
http://www.linuxforums.org/
ht
Google:
http://www.linux.org/
http://www.linux.com/
h
http://www.suse.com/us/
ht
http://www.mandrakelin
http://www.debian.org/
http://www.kernel
http://www.gentoo.org/
http://www.linuxdoc
Talk amongst yourselves...
I remember seeing the documentary (probably one of the Cringley PBS specials) where the person typing the login thought it was ironic that the first internet message was 'lo'. Kinda like how the English English say 'hello'... Or like the old joke...
Q: What did the Englishman say when he found his wife in bed with three men?
A: lo, lo, lo!
Here's a nice photo/article of a "conventional" mushroom cloud:
o si on_1945.html
http://webhome.idirect.com/~jproc/iroquois/expl
"Interesting how science and philosophy intersects at times."
Remind me... what does the "Ph" in PhD stand for?
I liked the series. It raised some interesting questions in me wee lil'ol mind. To start, are these stings the most basic unit of physics or is there some other underlying principle beneath them? For some reason I have the feeling that physics is something like those Russian dolls that keep having smaller ones embedded within.
Another question... Why 11 demensions? Is this just the number that is needed until we need more? Why not an infinite number? Do we even have the math that can handle this?
It also seems that the smaller the object we want to observe, the more energy that is needed. At some point won't we be confined to philosophy? Or will we always be able to deduce whats happening beneath by what bubbles to the surface?
Given that I suck at physics and math, philosophy is all I will ever have.
Well... back to my regularly scheduled Friday night activity... beer.
Same arguement as back in the 70's about the manufacturing industry.
The US will continue to be the most prosperous country on earth cause they just let evolution happen. Out with the old in with the new.
For individuals effected, it's certainly hard. For the country as a whole, just a bump on the road to something better.
Why should I buy something from you for $10, when I can buy it from someone else for $5. What are you, a COMMIE!!
Signed, "A Canuck working on an American contract".
Safeharbour Statement: "Long may your big jib draw!"
Risk Management 101
Likelihood that your company will be sued by SCO - unlikely
Likelihood that your company will undergo a Microsoft Licence audit - very likely
Expected cost of SCO damages to your company - approaching zero
Expected cost of purchasing additional MS licences - several thousands of dollars
There's probably a good chance that this person can be tracked. It's probably just a matter of checking the logs for http://slashdot.org/submit.pl or an email to micheal@@slashdot.org. Unless, of course, the submitter admins the logs.
I like the name "WNW Windows" - Window's Not Windows Windows
On a very simplistic level it seems that the http protocol is:
What - path/object in URL
Where - host:port
hoW - method (get, put, post...)
Perhaps we need another three W's:
Who - public keys
When - expiry date
Why - in response to X
The who, when, and why could be used at the network border to allow authorized responses to travel through at some later date. This may resolve the issues identified.
Just my $0.02Can you imagine the office environment... OU, OU, OU, EE, EE, EE!!
What I would find more interesting would be their distributed index algorithms. Maybe they have some ideas on how to make Gnutella more scalable?
Don't put to much faith in digital signatures ability to identify the human user of a computer. Basically all a signature does is guarantee that the user had access to the signature, not that they are legitimate owner of that signature. In a court of law, the signer can still repudiate said traffic.
My experiences over the past two years (in New Brunswick)
1. X-ray of right ankle (slash with Hockey stick)
2. X-ray of Ribs (run over by Sea-Doo)
3. Stitches in lip (hockey puck)
4. X-ray on left ankle (stepped on baseball bat)
The initial assessments were done by the triage nurse within 15 minutes of arrival. Average total time, about 3-4 hours, probably because I was on the low priority list.
A little slow, but I wouldn't expect to save any more than about 4 hours per year in the US.
try to predict the "canned" answers the candidates will give us. For example, something like this:
Al Gore
"As the inventor of the Internet, I promise to..."
George W Bush
"I promise not to use any subblibblibminable banner ads on my website..."
Ralph Nader
"The Internet is unsafe at any speed! Our reseach shows that the exponential growth in packet collisions...."