You're saying that sending through a publicly accessible router is "remotely-controlling a machine" and that it is different from "remotely-controlling a poorly-secured public web server?"
Huh? Where did you get "router"?
You were referring to someone accessing an unlinked file on a PUBLIC web server. I'm talking about accessing a PRIVATE web server that was accidentally exposed to Internet traffic. I'm claiming they're different.
The former is unsecured intentionally, the latter is not.
Re:I liked Internet Explorer 7 the first time...
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 1
The server itself was public, served public documents, and they tried to argue that a file on that server, amid all the public information, was actually private?
They didn't have a problem with the machine being remotely asked to provide something, just a problem with accessing that particular thing via the machine. That seems distinct from remotely-controlling a machine without expressed permission. If the web server in question had been a poorly-secured private intranet server, rather than a public web server, I think the ruling would have been different.
Why should it waste the judge's time at all? We just need some intelligent case law stating that any unsecured networks are equivalent to open networks. OS manufacturers have made it the de facto standard that unsecured networks are considered available networks.
I'd prefer if the protocol supported something, from a bit flag up through a complex set of descriptors, that clearly indicates whether the network is intended for public use. Set the default configuration to be "private only" and ensure tools don't automagically connect to something marked private.
Having court precident that equates insecurity to permission to use seems dubious.
Yet they find time to rant about baseball players on steroids, Janice Jackson's nipple during the Superbowl, and Hillary's whining about cyber-sex in GTA.
Don't forget offensive music lyrics. Hillary's following in Tipper Gore's footsteps, just with video games instead of music.
Tile damage elsewhere is nothing to sneeze at, but generally the underside tile loss is not as bad because the heating and the air movement is less direct.
And not as critical for actual flight in atmosphere as say, the wings and the tail.
Then make sure you explain that 2/3 of the "catch projects" will be abandoned as folks decide to do something that will actually pay money. So, 1/3 of the demonstrations WON'T result in concussions.
The problem with this analogy is that, if you rely on the an open source projects that gets abandoned, you can take up the job of maintaining it to make sure it stays alive to meet your needs. With closed source software, you truly are up the creek sans paddle unless you have some kind of source escrowing contract.
Besides that, the control personnel are supposed to remain professional in the face of trouble, in case they can salvage some aspect of the situation. IIRC, the investigation report for the Challenger explosion determined that the crew cabin stayed mostly intact until impact with the ocean. In theory, the controllers might have been called to help the crew perform emergency procedures, if any had been sufficiently prepared for such an eventuality.
What would the GP have preferred, I wonder? "Oh, shit!"?
It's not a matter of original ideas; it's downright copying.
Yup. The Abyss, Leviathan, and Deep Star Six all came out within months of each other (IIRC). Someone came up with a "people encounter scary situations at the bottom of the sea" idea and the others rushed to market with a copycat.
They do this all the time, and once you're watching for it, it becomes obvious.
At the moment, the success of Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings are cranking out all sorts of new and classic books with popular followings as movies. A Series of Unfortunate Events was probably due to that and the Narnia series is next.
Clearly someone hasn't watched Saturday morning TV in a while. A newer CGI version called Voltron: The Third Dimension was on a few years ago. My kids got their introduction to Voltron through that dreadful version.
The largest part of the cost does not come from recovering the data (although that will be costly), it is from the cost to actually analyze the data and perform any necessary calculations.
Let's imagine that the object on the end of a string is a rubber ball, attached to a string at one pole. Do you doubt that the rubber ball, when being spun, would be elongated as if experiencing an outward force?
Momentum of the ball would normally keep it travelling in a straight line. The ball elongates as part of it is accelerated away from its path of momentum, and the rest of the ball is pulled by lesser degrees by cohesion. There's no force pulling the other side of the ball.
I am referring to the outward force vector F4 that is pulling on the string.
So now you're claiming that "centrifugal force" is the force of the object on the string it's attached to?
Again, the fictional centrifugal force, if it existed, would operate on the object doing the orbiting, not the object being orbited or the connecting medium. Those are the only things experiencing outward force.
The terms centripetal and centrifugal are use when talking about circular motion in general, and are not limited to the special case where gravitational attraction is the centripetal force. You can hardly call the equal-and-opposite force of a rock on a string "reciprocal gravitational attraction."
My mistake, I thought you were just confused about the lack of a string when considering the equal and opposite force. Instead, you're confused about Newton's Third in a general sense.
In the case of a string, we have the following forces:
(O) = orbited object (o) = orbiting object -s- = string ... = padding because no <pre> available
Force F1 = orbited object pulling on string Force F2 = string pulling on orbited object Force F3 = string pulling on orbiting object Force F4 = orbiting object pulling on string
Since F1=F2 and F3=F4 by Newton's Third, and F2=F3 since the string does not slack or break, the forces balance.
Note at no time is there an outward force on the orbitING object, just the orbitED object and the string.
In the case of a gravitational orbit, the string is replaced by the mutual gravitational force, under which the masses directly apply force to each other, but the idea is the same:
You feel nothing because the centripetal force OUTWARD is balanced by the gravitational force INWARD.
No, centripetal force is always inward. The gravitational force on an orbiting object *is* the cetripetal force.
Let's consider a ball with a string attatched to it. Say you pick up the ball, and twirl it around your head. The centripetal force OUTWARD is constant. It is an unbalanced force. Without the string providing the INWARD force, it would fly off. There is absolutely no inward force without the string(ignoring friction).
You're talking in circles. An object orbiting on a string pulls outward on the string because it wants to retain momentum, but the string pulls back due to tensile strength.
The outward force is on the body being orbited, the inward force is on the body doing the orbiting.
I'm not talking about that force vector. I'm talking about the equal and oppositely force vector required by Newton's 3rd law. It points outward from the center and is therefore centrifugal.
Maybe you should Ask a Scientist. The equal-and-opposite force when gravity is involved is the reciprocal gravitational attraction.
It is a force vector directed away from the center. In what sense is that not centrifugal?
No, the force vector is directed *toward* the center of the Earth. The momentum vector is along a tangent of the orbit.
I would say rather that scientists at the time were clever enough to appreciate that perceived forces depend upon one's frame of reference.
In a car, you feel drawn away from the center of the turn, but that's because the car's wheels constrain the car to move and you're pulled along with the car.
When you're orbiting the Earth, even on the Moon, you'll not feel anything because the centripetal force (in this case, gravity) is pulling you together with the Moon.
Where's any perception of outward force, in any reference frame?
Slashdot Mirror
You're saying that sending through a publicly accessible router is "remotely-controlling a machine" and that it is different from "remotely-controlling a poorly-secured public web server?"
Huh? Where did you get "router"?
You were referring to someone accessing an unlinked file on a PUBLIC web server. I'm talking about accessing a PRIVATE web server that was accidentally exposed to Internet traffic. I'm claiming they're different.
The former is unsecured intentionally, the latter is not.
You forgot Protoss zealots.
Which are much better than ProDOS zealots.
The server itself was public, served public documents, and they tried to argue that a file on that server, amid all the public information, was actually private?
They didn't have a problem with the machine being remotely asked to provide something, just a problem with accessing that particular thing via the machine. That seems distinct from remotely-controlling a machine without expressed permission. If the web server in question had been a poorly-secured private intranet server, rather than a public web server, I think the ruling would have been different.
It's hard to say for certain without any cites.
Why should it waste the judge's time at all? We just need some intelligent case law stating that any unsecured networks are equivalent to open networks. OS manufacturers have made it the de facto standard that unsecured networks are considered available networks.
I'd prefer if the protocol supported something, from a bit flag up through a complex set of descriptors, that clearly indicates whether the network is intended for public use. Set the default configuration to be "private only" and ensure tools don't automagically connect to something marked private.
Having court precident that equates insecurity to permission to use seems dubious.
Would you similarly welcome the disclosure of a security flaw at your bank, hospital, etc. that granted access to your private/personal records?
In this litigious society? Some would welcome that as an opportunity to sue someone and Get Rich Quick.
Hookers though, well, it's really gonna be tough for them ...
If they learn to code bot behaviors, they'd do well. They have domain experience, after all.
Yet they find time to rant about baseball players on steroids, Janice Jackson's nipple during the Superbowl, and Hillary's whining about cyber-sex in GTA.
Don't forget offensive music lyrics. Hillary's following in Tipper Gore's footsteps, just with video games instead of music.
Tile damage elsewhere is nothing to sneeze at, but generally the underside tile loss is not as bad because the heating and the air movement is less direct.
And not as critical for actual flight in atmosphere as say, the wings and the tail.
Ignoring whether it's true, you surely mean "incorrect" not "offtopic". The latter does not imply the former, and vice versa.
First of all, a vast majority of people who actually write software for a living don't work for a software company.
This sounds like the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Can you support this assertion?
Or, to paraphrase, "Shuttle Destroyed in Inferno"
And if it later lands successfully, "Discovery Landing Faked!"
Then make sure you explain that 2/3 of the "catch projects" will be abandoned as folks decide to do something that will actually pay money. So, 1/3 of the demonstrations WON'T result in concussions.
The problem with this analogy is that, if you rely on the an open source projects that gets abandoned, you can take up the job of maintaining it to make sure it stays alive to meet your needs. With closed source software, you truly are up the creek sans paddle unless you have some kind of source escrowing contract.
Besides that, the control personnel are supposed to remain professional in the face of trouble, in case they can salvage some aspect of the situation. IIRC, the investigation report for the Challenger explosion determined that the crew cabin stayed mostly intact until impact with the ocean. In theory, the controllers might have been called to help the crew perform emergency procedures, if any had been sufficiently prepared for such an eventuality.
What would the GP have preferred, I wonder? "Oh, shit!"?
It's not a matter of original ideas; it's downright copying.
Yup. The Abyss, Leviathan, and Deep Star Six all came out within months of each other (IIRC). Someone came up with a "people encounter scary situations at the bottom of the sea" idea and the others rushed to market with a copycat.
They do this all the time, and once you're watching for it, it becomes obvious.
At the moment, the success of Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings are cranking out all sorts of new and classic books with popular followings as movies. A Series of Unfortunate Events was probably due to that and the Narnia series is next.
Lets take bets on what TV franchise from the 80's they will bastardize next. I've got $50 down for He-Man.
Er, there's already a not-so-shabby remake. My middle child got hooked on that briefly and owns action figures from it.
Clearly someone hasn't watched Saturday morning TV in a while. A newer CGI version called Voltron: The Third Dimension was on a few years ago. My kids got their introduction to Voltron through that dreadful version.
The largest part of the cost does not come from recovering the data (although that will be costly), it is from the cost to actually analyze the data and perform any necessary calculations.
PioneerAnomaly@Home?
SDK + animation = mini games on your keyboard!
Combine with cheezy beeps out of your computer's built-in speaker, and you've got SIMON!
Let's imagine that the object on the end of a string is a rubber ball, attached to a string at one pole. Do you doubt that the rubber ball, when being spun, would be elongated as if experiencing an outward force?
Momentum of the ball would normally keep it travelling in a straight line. The ball elongates as part of it is accelerated away from its path of momentum, and the rest of the ball is pulled by lesser degrees by cohesion. There's no force pulling the other side of the ball.
I am referring to the outward force vector F4 that is pulling on the string.
So now you're claiming that "centrifugal force" is the force of the object on the string it's attached to?
Again, the fictional centrifugal force, if it existed, would operate on the object doing the orbiting, not the object being orbited or the connecting medium. Those are the only things experiencing outward force.
My mistake, I thought you were just confused about the lack of a string when considering the equal and opposite force. Instead, you're confused about Newton's Third in a general sense.
In the case of a string, we have the following forces:Since F1=F2 and F3=F4 by Newton's Third, and F2=F3 since the string does not slack or break, the forces balance.
Note at no time is there an outward force on the orbitING object, just the orbitED object and the string.
In the case of a gravitational orbit, the string is replaced by the mutual gravitational force, under which the masses directly apply force to each other, but the idea is the same:Note again that there's no outward force on the orbitING object, just the orbitED object.
You feel nothing because the centripetal force OUTWARD is balanced by the gravitational force INWARD.
No, centripetal force is always inward. The gravitational force on an orbiting object *is* the cetripetal force.
Let's consider a ball with a string attatched to it. Say you pick up the ball, and twirl it around your head. The centripetal force OUTWARD is constant. It is an unbalanced force. Without the string providing the INWARD force, it would fly off. There is absolutely no inward force without the string(ignoring friction).
You're talking in circles. An object orbiting on a string pulls outward on the string because it wants to retain momentum, but the string pulls back due to tensile strength.
The outward force is on the body being orbited, the inward force is on the body doing the orbiting.
I'm not talking about that force vector. I'm talking about the equal and oppositely force vector required by Newton's 3rd law. It points outward from the center and is therefore centrifugal.
Maybe you should Ask a Scientist. The equal-and-opposite force when gravity is involved is the reciprocal gravitational attraction.
It is a force vector directed away from the center. In what sense is that not centrifugal?
No, the force vector is directed *toward* the center of the Earth. The momentum vector is along a tangent of the orbit.
I would say rather that scientists at the time were clever enough to appreciate that perceived forces depend upon one's frame of reference.
In a car, you feel drawn away from the center of the turn, but that's because the car's wheels constrain the car to move and you're pulled along with the car.
When you're orbiting the Earth, even on the Moon, you'll not feel anything because the centripetal force (in this case, gravity) is pulling you together with the Moon.
Where's any perception of outward force, in any reference frame?