That's different. It adds no useful information to the URL.
And it's not "hidden", it's optional. A DNS query should return the same result with or without a dot at the end. The browser doesn't try to hide it at all; it just queries the DNS nameserver on whatever domain was entered. It doesn't add a dot when it does the DNS lookup if the user didn't enter one, nor does it hide the one the user enters if they do.
It's no different than saying that the URL's capitalization is "hidden". It's not hidden, it just doesn't care.
google.com and google.net are completely different websites, though, and the last bit of information that differentiates between them (.com or.net) should not be hidden from users.
just have an invisible ".web", just make it so browsers don't tell the normal folk about it and they'd soon forget there even were such things as tlds.
Worst idea EVAR.
You'd think that after the lame-brained idea of hiding file extensions had already delivered this message the hard way, people might have learned something.
Yes. It would be much easier to track one single giant ball than thousands of small pieces of trash.
Currently they're tracking over 10,000 objects in orbit, IIRC, and that's just counting the ones larger than 4 inches. Every time they go into space they have to make sure they're not going to cross paths with any one of those little pieces of trash.
Slightly, yes, they'd decelerate the net. But if the edges were weighted, the center of the net should tend to decelerate more, so it would sag in the middle. That would probably be adequate to scoop the objects back in if they began to drift away slightly.
the fish, when it contacts the net, is now stuck between two forces acting on it in opposite directions. It's being accelerated by water drag, and held in place by the net... This space-net would have to be "sticky" in order to keep anything it captures in contact with it.
A regular net needs this set of forces because otherwise gravity and currents in the water would make the object come out of the net. In zero-gravity and with no fluid around it, none of these forces would apply. This would be an inelastic collision. Objects wouldn't bounce off the net; the delta in velocity would be reduced to zero and then the object and net would remain relatively stationary with respect to each other. The slightest force would make the object come back off the net, but there's nothing to apply that force, so it won't.
Plus, again, if it has no propulsion system, then after it hits the first object it will have an unknown orbit. Inelastic collision of a rigid object and a floppy object will give you a wide range of resultant velocities.
That is simply incorrect. Any collision can be reduced to an interaction between two equivalent point masses. In an elastic collision, you end up with two point masses; in an inelastic collision, you end up with only one. Either way, the resulting velocity can easily be calculated. Perhaps you meant that since it's an inelastic collision, it would cause the net and its contents to begin tumbling (rotating along an axis not perpendicular to the net's flat surface)? That is a near-certainty, but the effect is still easily calculable. It's just a force vector acting at a certain distance from the centre of mass, creating a torque such that the pair (the net and the object it captured, which can now be represented by a single point mass) begins to rotate.
What's more, the obvious solution would be to make the mass (i.e. momentum) of the net very large in comparison with the mass of the objects it's designed to capture. Weighting the edges would help this also, as would spinning the net (giving it rotational momentum, i.e. like a gyroscope). That way, it does collapse over the objects as it captures them and/or begin to tumble, but it does so extremely slowly because the affect on its total momentum is very small. Plus, you could easily unfold the net again by spinning it with thrusters on the weights at its edges.
2) Wouldn't the stable orbit ensure it is (almost) only catching objects with a similary orbit, hence similar speeds?
While that seems like a reasonable assumption at first thought, in fact it would only really be accurate if most of the junk was in the same orbit, and their orbits didn't cross the orbits of other junk in significantly different orbits. As these pictures show, this isn't the case - most of the stuff was launched at orbits with high inclinations to the equator. In other words, it doesn't zip around in nice straight lines... it literally zig-zags across the sky, in order to cover the largest possible amount of the earth's surface (e.g. real-time tracking showing the paths of satellites). That's good to have in a satellite, but bad to have in space trash. It's like a beehive up there.
Two objects moving at similar speeds can still have a pretty spectacular collision if they're moving at significantly large angles to each other.
Tetris consists of pieces, a playing field, rules of play, and possibly music and/or sound.
We have, at least, established that the pieces themselves cannot be copyrighted. The artwork used to draw the pieces can be copyrighted, but anyone else could just draw their own pieces - they're just squares arranged in simple patterns, and the patterns are not complex enough to be copyrighted.
A creative combination of the pieces could be copyrighted... but the order in which the pieces are presented by the game is random. Now, that random algorithm can in fact be copyrighted, but again - anyone could design their own or use one that isn't copyrighted.
The field of play is a simple rectangular grid on which pieces can be played. This is not copyrightable. Like the pieces, the artwork can be copyrighted, but not the concept.
The rest of the game is just rules: pieces move downward at set intervals in time, can be moved left and right, and can be rotated (clockwise and/or counterclockwise). This is game-play and cannot be copyrighted.
The sound track will naturally be protected by copyright but like the graphics, it's easy enough to make your own sound effects and music.
The only thing that can be copyrighted is the artwork and the music/sfx.
that says more about the course than about the student. It says that the assignment is testing knowledge, not understanding
That doesn't mean you can't gain understanding though... just that you'll have to work at it a little harder.
Cheating by copying is only cheating yourself, because having the right information on your paper isn't going to help you when you enter the real world and face a problem that doesn't have a cookie-cutter solution. You need to know how to solve problems, not just bludgeon the solution to some other problem until it looks enough like an answer that will pass for the solution for the current one.
Same with programming classes - I was horrified at most of the students - instead of actually solving a programming problem, they took sample code or someone else's work and hammered at it until it (sort of) solved the problem they were supposed to solve. Usually this was like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. If it even compiled, it usually had severe logic problems and didn't work, because it was the solution to the wrong problem.
It's like writing a command line pipe... except that all the inputs and outputs don't match so you bash them together repeatedly until it outputs something. And then you're trying to figure out why "something" isn't the output you wanted. It's the complete wrong way to go about it.
You might be surprised at what a creditor can get away with if they believe you owe them money. They can't send somebody to beat you up every month, but they can still make your life pretty miserable.
Yeah, they'd have to prove it was you in order to force you to pay. But you have to prove it wasn't you in order to force them to stop trying to collect...
Yeah, well - it is the store's loss. You can get things straightened out and have the debt taken off your account and get the credit report fixed, but that takes time and is a big hassle.
However it would also be a hassle if Home Depot or Lowe's made every person who wanted in-store credit show a birth certificate or passport. They take a calculated risk by not doing so.
Your system sounds like lenders trying to cover their own asses. Which makes sense, but it's a trade off.
It's in Lowe's best interest to make it easy for people to get credit. Nobody wants to bring in their passport or birth certificate to get $150 credit on a refrigerator.
The drawback is that anybody flaunting the correct 9-digit number can get money that traces back to you, but the system is designed in such a way that you can get it straightened out. It's just a big hassle, as PolygamousRanchKid said. And Lowe's is on the hook for it, which they accepted as a risk of doing business.
Banks are liable for losses on credit card purchases. If you see unauthorized charges on your bill, you can refuse to pay it (granted, I think you have to notify them in a somewhat timely manner, and other reasonable restrictions probably apply).
Debit card purchases, not so much. If they had your PIN, you're screwed. If they used it without a PIN, it was technically a credit card purchase so the bank is actually supposed to be liable for it, but unlike a credit card purchase, the money has already left your account - you have to fight them to get it back.
Slashdot Mirror
That's different. It adds no useful information to the URL.
And it's not "hidden", it's optional. A DNS query should return the same result with or without a dot at the end. The browser doesn't try to hide it at all; it just queries the DNS nameserver on whatever domain was entered. It doesn't add a dot when it does the DNS lookup if the user didn't enter one, nor does it hide the one the user enters if they do.
It's no different than saying that the URL's capitalization is "hidden". It's not hidden, it just doesn't care.
google.com and google.net are completely different websites, though, and the last bit of information that differentiates between them (.com or .net) should not be hidden from users.
TFA appears to be a bad article written by someone who doesn't know the difference between an "internet address" and a TLD.
just have an invisible ".web", just make it so browsers don't tell the normal folk about it and they'd soon forget there even were such things as tlds.
Worst idea EVAR.
You'd think that after the lame-brained idea of hiding file extensions had already delivered this message the hard way, people might have learned something.
That is precisely how things presently work.
Tightening their grip will only push more people to alternatives such as Freenet.
Turn it off and quit wasting electricity on cores we don't need. Modern CPUs are capable of turning off cores that aren't needed to save power.
They are.
first internet connection on Mars. Speed of light. Yes. That could be possible if there were some initiative.
The speed of light has nothing to do with the throughput (how much data can be transferred in, say, 1 minute). It defines the latency.
"first internet connection on Mars. Speed of light" = pings of 36692 ms. Sound good to anyone?
Yes. It would be much easier to track one single giant ball than thousands of small pieces of trash.
Currently they're tracking over 10,000 objects in orbit, IIRC, and that's just counting the ones larger than 4 inches. Every time they go into space they have to make sure they're not going to cross paths with any one of those little pieces of trash.
Slightly, yes, they'd decelerate the net. But if the edges were weighted, the center of the net should tend to decelerate more, so it would sag in the middle. That would probably be adequate to scoop the objects back in if they began to drift away slightly.
the fish, when it contacts the net, is now stuck between two forces acting on it in opposite directions. It's being accelerated by water drag, and held in place by the net ... This space-net would have to be "sticky" in order to keep anything it captures in contact with it.
A regular net needs this set of forces because otherwise gravity and currents in the water would make the object come out of the net. In zero-gravity and with no fluid around it, none of these forces would apply. This would be an inelastic collision. Objects wouldn't bounce off the net; the delta in velocity would be reduced to zero and then the object and net would remain relatively stationary with respect to each other. The slightest force would make the object come back off the net, but there's nothing to apply that force, so it won't.
Plus, again, if it has no propulsion system, then after it hits the first object it will have an unknown orbit. Inelastic collision of a rigid object and a floppy object will give you a wide range of resultant velocities.
That is simply incorrect. Any collision can be reduced to an interaction between two equivalent point masses. In an elastic collision, you end up with two point masses; in an inelastic collision, you end up with only one. Either way, the resulting velocity can easily be calculated. Perhaps you meant that since it's an inelastic collision, it would cause the net and its contents to begin tumbling (rotating along an axis not perpendicular to the net's flat surface)? That is a near-certainty, but the effect is still easily calculable. It's just a force vector acting at a certain distance from the centre of mass, creating a torque such that the pair (the net and the object it captured, which can now be represented by a single point mass) begins to rotate.
What's more, the obvious solution would be to make the mass (i.e. momentum) of the net very large in comparison with the mass of the objects it's designed to capture. Weighting the edges would help this also, as would spinning the net (giving it rotational momentum, i.e. like a gyroscope). That way, it does collapse over the objects as it captures them and/or begin to tumble, but it does so extremely slowly because the affect on its total momentum is very small. Plus, you could easily unfold the net again by spinning it with thrusters on the weights at its edges.
2) Wouldn't the stable orbit ensure it is (almost) only catching objects with a similary orbit, hence similar speeds?
While that seems like a reasonable assumption at first thought, in fact it would only really be accurate if most of the junk was in the same orbit, and their orbits didn't cross the orbits of other junk in significantly different orbits. As these pictures show, this isn't the case - most of the stuff was launched at orbits with high inclinations to the equator. In other words, it doesn't zip around in nice straight lines... it literally zig-zags across the sky, in order to cover the largest possible amount of the earth's surface (e.g. real-time tracking showing the paths of satellites). That's good to have in a satellite, but bad to have in space trash. It's like a beehive up there.
Two objects moving at similar speeds can still have a pretty spectacular collision if they're moving at significantly large angles to each other.
Okay.
Tetris consists of pieces, a playing field, rules of play, and possibly music and/or sound.
We have, at least, established that the pieces themselves cannot be copyrighted. The artwork used to draw the pieces can be copyrighted, but anyone else could just draw their own pieces - they're just squares arranged in simple patterns, and the patterns are not complex enough to be copyrighted.
A creative combination of the pieces could be copyrighted... but the order in which the pieces are presented by the game is random. Now, that random algorithm can in fact be copyrighted, but again - anyone could design their own or use one that isn't copyrighted.
The field of play is a simple rectangular grid on which pieces can be played. This is not copyrightable. Like the pieces, the artwork can be copyrighted, but not the concept.
The rest of the game is just rules: pieces move downward at set intervals in time, can be moved left and right, and can be rotated (clockwise and/or counterclockwise). This is game-play and cannot be copyrighted.
The sound track will naturally be protected by copyright but like the graphics, it's easy enough to make your own sound effects and music.
The only thing that can be copyrighted is the artwork and the music/sfx.
As a rule, they take the easy option regardless of consequences.
Precisely why making crime more difficult is often a pretty good deterrent.
that says more about the course than about the student. It says that the assignment is testing knowledge, not understanding
That doesn't mean you can't gain understanding though... just that you'll have to work at it a little harder.
Cheating by copying is only cheating yourself, because having the right information on your paper isn't going to help you when you enter the real world and face a problem that doesn't have a cookie-cutter solution. You need to know how to solve problems, not just bludgeon the solution to some other problem until it looks enough like an answer that will pass for the solution for the current one.
Same with programming classes - I was horrified at most of the students - instead of actually solving a programming problem, they took sample code or someone else's work and hammered at it until it (sort of) solved the problem they were supposed to solve. Usually this was like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. If it even compiled, it usually had severe logic problems and didn't work, because it was the solution to the wrong problem.
It's like writing a command line pipe... except that all the inputs and outputs don't match so you bash them together repeatedly until it outputs something. And then you're trying to figure out why "something" isn't the output you wanted. It's the complete wrong way to go about it.
Shouldn't, but it would be awfully easy for debtors to abuse the system if a simple form letter was all that was required to get them off your back.
Good point. Yeah, the bank is liable - but they'll just charge back the seller. And they get to keep their 3% fee (or whatever it is).
WTF, the identity thief's right to privacy now trumps the cardholder's right to go there and kick their ass?
Um, no... you don't have the right to go take the law into your own hands... but I'm pretty sure they'd comply with a police investigation.
You might be surprised at what a creditor can get away with if they believe you owe them money. They can't send somebody to beat you up every month, but they can still make your life pretty miserable.
Yeah, they'd have to prove it was you in order to force you to pay. But you have to prove it wasn't you in order to force them to stop trying to collect...
Yeah, well - it is the store's loss. You can get things straightened out and have the debt taken off your account and get the credit report fixed, but that takes time and is a big hassle.
However it would also be a hassle if Home Depot or Lowe's made every person who wanted in-store credit show a birth certificate or passport. They take a calculated risk by not doing so.
Your system sounds like lenders trying to cover their own asses. Which makes sense, but it's a trade off.
It's in Lowe's best interest to make it easy for people to get credit. Nobody wants to bring in their passport or birth certificate to get $150 credit on a refrigerator.
The drawback is that anybody flaunting the correct 9-digit number can get money that traces back to you, but the system is designed in such a way that you can get it straightened out. It's just a big hassle, as PolygamousRanchKid said. And Lowe's is on the hook for it, which they accepted as a risk of doing business.
Banks are liable for losses on credit card purchases. If you see unauthorized charges on your bill, you can refuse to pay it (granted, I think you have to notify them in a somewhat timely manner, and other reasonable restrictions probably apply).
Debit card purchases, not so much. If they had your PIN, you're screwed. If they used it without a PIN, it was technically a credit card purchase so the bank is actually supposed to be liable for it, but unlike a credit card purchase, the money has already left your account - you have to fight them to get it back.
you still get something for nothing
Not true.
Whatever they get costs them time, effort, and risk. If the reward isn't large enough, it's not worth it.
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/
Well, one of those palette entries can be transparent, so if you just stack enough GIF images on top of each other...
Okay... I keed...
Sort of...