L1, L2, and L3 are semi-stable -- they're stable perpendicular to the axis of the two massive bodies, and unstable along that axis. That makes station-keeping pretty easy, but it still needs to be done. L4 and L5 are fully stable. As for it being unsafe to leave things, I had actually meant that you can't just leave Hubble where it is until it completely fails and then forget about it. But, even at one of the Lagrange points, it poses a hazard to other things you might like to put at that point later.
So if I have friends who have Bart and Lisa porn, does that make me weird? I'm guessing it has at least something to do with you underestimating the popularity of "weird" porn.
But the classic top is rather cool. Or, to be specific, a precision-machined brass top with tungsten carbide tip and laser balanced weighting that spins for 15 minutes is very cool.
Lit matches, too. Or a candle, or other flame / plasma source. That seems easier than drying lots of grapes. Btw, if the plasma ball gets stuck, open the door quickly, before the paint starts to burn... that *really* stinks.
Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was snow. Other kings said I was daft to build a base in the snow, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It was buried in the snow. So, I built a second one. That was buried in the snow. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then was buried in the snow, but the fourth one... stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the strongest base in Antarctica.
Sorry, but no. A basic economics course would make it quite clear what will happen. You have two competing products (regular crude and this stuff). If you increase the supply of this stuff, total consumption will go up, but consumption of crude will go down. It's not too hard to see why: the reason this stuff would increase consumption is if the price dropped. If the price dropped, then it becomes less profitable to extract fossil fuel oil, and so less is sold. The result is perfectly normal, and not a catch-22 at all.
And the important part is that this has a much much lower impact on the environment than drilling for crude -- it doesn't introduce any new carbon into the system, it just uses it a bit more before releasing it.
Did you read anything about what happened? The Freenet project did not use an anonymizing proxy to access Paypal, ever. It appears that Paypal decided that since Freenet itself is something vaguely related to an anonymizing proxy, that they wouldn't let the project have an account. This has nothing to do with how the Freenet project used Paypal, and everything to do with the politics of what Freenet is.
So, had this actually occured to you before the article was posted? If so, nicely done -- you're more creative than I am. But for the vast majority of people, this is non-obvious until it's been pointed out. Defeating it probably isn't hard, just like with the modems. However, in areas where security is that important, it still has to be defeated, which requires action. These articles are important simply because they point out security risks that most people would have thought impossible.
Is there a site with a good overview of the Japanese legal system, and how it is similar to / different from the US one, both in procedures and laws? I see occasional pieces about Japanese legal issues, but am always amazed at how little I know.
At a guess, your librarian doesn't read Slashdot. Have you made specific requests for books? I highly doubt that your librarian has the technical expertise to get the books you want, but they would probably be willing to try if you offered some suggestions.
No, they haven't. They abandoned *your* release goals. Their release goals put far higher priority on the principles of free software, as defined by documents like the social contract.
If that means that Debian is not the system for you, then you're certainly welcome to do something else. That can be anything from running a combination of unstable, testing, contrib, and non-free in addition to the base system, to running a completely different distribution. This may very well mean Debian is not the distribution for you. However, I am quite glad that there is a group of people that produce a system like this, even if they don't always get usability in any of a variety of forms as high on that list.
Yes, it does. Or at least can, I don't know about this specific case. Ethylene Glycol has an ethylene functional group in it, which is characterised by a reactive carbon-carbon double bond. That reactive bond is almost certainly related to its toxicity. The poly in polyethylene glycol refers to polymerization. In this process, that double bond is converted into a single bond, and attaches on either end to another ethylene glycol molecule, creating a long chain of single bonds, which are far less reactive and quite possibly nontoxic. I don't know about PEG in specific, but a modest knowledge of polymer chem suggests that is what's happening. I'm sure someone can correct me if I've got it wrong, though.
Suitcase locks aren't hard to pick. You can do it with a couple paperclips and a modicum of skill or time, or real tools and less skill and time. The combination luggage locks are actually pickable too, with tools (the wheels have things they catch on; the picks basically involve inserting thin bits of metal beside the wheels and catching them by hand). If someone is willing to go to that much work, your ordinary suitcase lock is only marginally better. Oddly enough, I think Bruce Schneier is at least mostly right here.
I mean really, is it such a hard word? You scale a mountain. Or you climb a mountain. But escalate means something entirely different. A problem escalates. Not a mountain.
I think copyrights were originally introduced to stop people from profiting from copyrights they don't own
There's a logical fallacy in this statement. Before copyrights, it's not a problem of people profiting from copyrights they don't own -- there is no such thing, if there are no copyrights. The problem that copyrights were designed to solve was that it was difficult for an artist or author to get compensation. There is *nothing* inherently wrong with profiting from copyrights you don't own. Think about book stores, movie theaters, radio stations, and many, many others. The problem is that when other people profit, we want the original creator to get compensation. At the same time, we want our culture to be generally available, which means allowing normal people to copy and distribute things. Hence, a sane copyright system tries to balance those goals with things like fair use and limited times (ie not 95 years).
And yes, I know I didn't exactly respond to most of your post... but hey, I agree with it;)
That would be a justifiable position to take, if CAPPS II actually increased security. The problem, however, is that not only does it not work, it actively decreases security.
The way it works is called the carnival booth attack, and it is described in much detail in this paper.
The basic idea is very simple. A person gets a score from the system, which is based on how likely they are to be a terrorist. Then, CAPPS II has most of the searches directed at people with high scores. So, a terrorist group needs only do a number of test runs, and see who does and doesn't get searched. The people who don't get searched obviously have low scores, and so they use them for the attacks. And in case you were wondering, yes, the terrorists are already using this scheme -- it was used in the 9/11 attacks. The hijackers did test runs, on the same exact flights to make sure everything worked as planned.
So, if there was an actual tradeoff to be made, then a rational debate could be had about the appropriate tradeoffs to make. But when they try to take away my privacy and as a result decrease the security, that I have a serious problem with.
Slashdot Mirror
L1, L2, and L3 are semi-stable -- they're stable perpendicular to the axis of the two massive bodies, and unstable along that axis. That makes station-keeping pretty easy, but it still needs to be done. L4 and L5 are fully stable. As for it being unsafe to leave things, I had actually meant that you can't just leave Hubble where it is until it completely fails and then forget about it. But, even at one of the Lagrange points, it poses a hazard to other things you might like to put at that point later.
2) The propulsion module needed to deorbit is much smaller and therefore cheaper to build and launch than one to move it.
3) Moving it then requires keeping it in place and also repairing it, if it's to be useful.
4) After moving it, it would still be nice to be able to dispose of it once it's no longer worth maintaining.
5) You do realize there's a plan to put the replacement at the (Earth-Sun) L2 point, right?
So if I have friends who have Bart and Lisa porn, does that make me weird? I'm guessing it has at least something to do with you underestimating the popularity of "weird" porn.
See here.
Lit matches, too. Or a candle, or other flame / plasma source. That seems easier than drying lots of grapes. Btw, if the plasma ball gets stuck, open the door quickly, before the paint starts to burn... that *really* stinks.
I have some thermite in the other room. I'll be right back :)
Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was snow. Other kings said I was daft to build a base in the snow, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It was buried in the snow. So, I built a second one. That was buried in the snow. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then was buried in the snow, but the fourth one... stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the strongest base in Antarctica.
hmm, it went away ;)
Anyway, it's been done, and yes it broke the site.
So, since this film is having trouble being distributed, does anyone have a copy or know where to get one?
And the important part is that this has a much much lower impact on the environment than drilling for crude -- it doesn't introduce any new carbon into the system, it just uses it a bit more before releasing it.
Did you read anything about what happened? The Freenet project did not use an anonymizing proxy to access Paypal, ever. It appears that Paypal decided that since Freenet itself is something vaguely related to an anonymizing proxy, that they wouldn't let the project have an account. This has nothing to do with how the Freenet project used Paypal, and everything to do with the politics of what Freenet is.
So, had this actually occured to you before the article was posted? If so, nicely done -- you're more creative than I am. But for the vast majority of people, this is non-obvious until it's been pointed out. Defeating it probably isn't hard, just like with the modems. However, in areas where security is that important, it still has to be defeated, which requires action. These articles are important simply because they point out security risks that most people would have thought impossible.
Thanks
Five is sufficient if you're planning on bludgeoning the other two with the empty pistol... Not a bad plan, after all.
At a guess, your librarian doesn't read Slashdot. Have you made specific requests for books? I highly doubt that your librarian has the technical expertise to get the books you want, but they would probably be willing to try if you offered some suggestions.
No, they haven't. They abandoned *your* release goals. Their release goals put far higher priority on the principles of free software, as defined by documents like the social contract.
If that means that Debian is not the system for you, then you're certainly welcome to do something else. That can be anything from running a combination of unstable, testing, contrib, and non-free in addition to the base system, to running a completely different distribution. This may very well mean Debian is not the distribution for you. However, I am quite glad that there is a group of people that produce a system like this, even if they don't always get usability in any of a variety of forms as high on that list.
If you read the auction, he's also offering 40 hours of skilled labor for $354. Now that's rather cheap, if you ask me.
Well, that will teach me to think I remember things from polymer chem class several years ago.
Yes, it does. Or at least can, I don't know about this specific case. Ethylene Glycol has an ethylene functional group in it, which is characterised by a reactive carbon-carbon double bond. That reactive bond is almost certainly related to its toxicity. The poly in polyethylene glycol refers to polymerization. In this process, that double bond is converted into a single bond, and attaches on either end to another ethylene glycol molecule, creating a long chain of single bonds, which are far less reactive and quite possibly nontoxic. I don't know about PEG in specific, but a modest knowledge of polymer chem suggests that is what's happening. I'm sure someone can correct me if I've got it wrong, though.
Suitcase locks aren't hard to pick. You can do it with a couple paperclips and a modicum of skill or time, or real tools and less skill and time. The combination luggage locks are actually pickable too, with tools (the wheels have things they catch on; the picks basically involve inserting thin bits of metal beside the wheels and catching them by hand). If someone is willing to go to that much work, your ordinary suitcase lock is only marginally better. Oddly enough, I think Bruce Schneier is at least mostly right here.
Don't forget the booze...
I mean really, is it such a hard word? You scale a mountain. Or you climb a mountain. But escalate means something entirely different. A problem escalates. Not a mountain.
Well, it's already got a script that does the updating, at least in 2.6.
There's a logical fallacy in this statement. Before copyrights, it's not a problem of people profiting from copyrights they don't own -- there is no such thing, if there are no copyrights. The problem that copyrights were designed to solve was that it was difficult for an artist or author to get compensation. There is *nothing* inherently wrong with profiting from copyrights you don't own. Think about book stores, movie theaters, radio stations, and many, many others. The problem is that when other people profit, we want the original creator to get compensation. At the same time, we want our culture to be generally available, which means allowing normal people to copy and distribute things. Hence, a sane copyright system tries to balance those goals with things like fair use and limited times (ie not 95 years).
And yes, I know I didn't exactly respond to most of your post... but hey, I agree with it ;)
The way it works is called the carnival booth attack, and it is described in much detail in this paper.
The basic idea is very simple. A person gets a score from the system, which is based on how likely they are to be a terrorist. Then, CAPPS II has most of the searches directed at people with high scores. So, a terrorist group needs only do a number of test runs, and see who does and doesn't get searched. The people who don't get searched obviously have low scores, and so they use them for the attacks. And in case you were wondering, yes, the terrorists are already using this scheme -- it was used in the 9/11 attacks. The hijackers did test runs, on the same exact flights to make sure everything worked as planned.
So, if there was an actual tradeoff to be made, then a rational debate could be had about the appropriate tradeoffs to make. But when they try to take away my privacy and as a result decrease the security, that I have a serious problem with.