The encryption systems for video are completely different than that for GPS. The military GPS signal wasn't just encrypted to add jitter: GPS was designed to help guide nuclear weapons. Obviously, they don't want that spoofed. Also, as I have stated before, the video transmissions in question were designed to be viewable by soldiers on the ground. Encrypting that would add a massive technical challenge, since you would need to get the soldiers decryption keys. The control signal itself has always been encrypted, AFAIK.
Yes, you can spoof commercial GPS systems. Military systems use an encrypted channel. That would be much harder to spoof. For obvious reasons, the system designed to guide nuclear weapons is designed against that sort of thing. I'm no expert on GPS, but I highly doubt the Iranians were able to accomplish that. I suspect they are lying to try to gain a psychological advantage. For one thing, if they actually could spoof GPS, it would be far, far better to keep it a secret.
Diesel subs are incredibly quite, since they run on pure electric motors when submerged (not quite so much when snorkeling their diesel motors, though). Even nuclear subs are generally louder, since they have an active steam cycle. They have a ton of disadvantages, but stealth is surprisingly not one of them. They can't maintain it as long as a nuclear powered sub, but still, they technically have the advantage in that area.
So they get named after successful presidents and/or people who were in the Navy. Both parts make sense. So even if he was a terrible president, being in the Navy distinguishes him enough to get a class of carriers name after him. Therefore, it was because (or at least could have been, and likely was because) he was in the Navy.
Well, one of the articles yesterday compared black holes to Cookie Monsters (as I pointed out), so... I would just be glad they didn't say something like "A LAN party uses a series of tubes to hook the play-time boxes together."
Which is odd, since Google's revenue in a single quarter is greater than the revenue of the entire music industry in a year (or approximately. Music is ~9-10 billion, Google is ~9 billion). Revenue != profit, I know, but still I should think Google would have tremendous influence in Washington. Plus, you know, the fact that they can reach most of the planet in a matter of hours with any message they so choose. I should think that would carry significant weight in Washington.
For Google? The public opinion. Google has tremendous power to lobby on their own. But if they loose public opinion, a company like Google that relies nearly 100% on the public using them on a daily basis could collapse overnight.
Not to quibble, since I fully agree, but since in this case Universal really does own the copyright (or that's what it looks like), your title would be the proper way to phrase it. Any unjustified copyright requests need to be punishable, whether the requestee owns the copyright or not. I would say especially if the use was covered by Fair Use, which this clearly was.
I would say loosing the copyright is a fair punishment, in this case. The use was clearly covered by exemptions, there is no way Universal could have not known this, so the takedown was clearly spurious. Most importantly, faulty claims need to hurt, and badly. A slap on the wrist just won't cut it.
All of what you say is true. But if you want to be the first to try out something new, or you simply have to have the latest and greatest, beta testing gives you that opportunity. Most of the time, the beta is perfectly stable anyways. Besides, it sounds like the beta testing was meant to stay internal (although I'm not going to read the article to actually find out).
Wouldn't that mean black holes aren't necessarily rare, but only that black holes near gas clouds are rare? There could be millions of them in the interstellar void, but with no gas to form an accretion disk, they would be completely invisible. And lensing effects would be incredibly difficult to detect. In fact, I thought that we only really detected most black holes if they were part of a binary system (which gives plenty of matter for x-ray radiation).
And, of course, it is absolutely impossible to see something that emits no radiation (ignoring the possibility of Hawking radiation, which is too weak to see in most cases anyways), so technically black holes aren't hard to see: they are impossible to see. We can only infer it's presence through the effect it has on matter outside the black hole itself. The x-ray radiation is not technically from the black hole itself, but rather from the effect that it's gravitational field has on incoming matter.
I'm not an astrophysicist... but I'm working on changing that.
If you're still young, go be an idiot. That's what college is for, generally.
Just don't throw up pictures of yourself being an idiot on Facebook. Or let you friends do so. In fact, don't have Facebook at all, or have friends whom you (moderately) trust. Hell, I just graduated and I wouldn't generally go drinking without trustworthy friends (certainly not to bars), if only to make sure I got home safely if I had one too many (which may or may not have happened to me, my memory is a little... fuzzy, at times). College student or not, those kinds of pictures can and quite likely will bite you in the ass later in life. Unless you intend to do that sort of thing your whole life, in which case... go right ahead.
Making the ads louder draws attention to them. It works, and advertisers will keep doing anything that works. Even if it just draws enough attention for people to mute it, they still notice the ad. Any attention is good attention for them. I've noticed this happening on Hulu (just enough to notice and be mildly irritating), since I don't actually watch TV anymore. Of course, Hulu's ads aren't interesting to me anyways (really, a 21-year-old single guy isn't going to be interested in Pediasure, TYVM), which is a failing on their part.
Because sometimes, especially while listening to a quiet movie, you PREFER NOT TO BE SUDDENLY BLASTED WITH NOISE!!
It's annoying as hell. I do kind of agree with you though that it doesn't seem like something the government needs to regulate. But, hey, at least it isn't something actually evil (*ahem* SOPA). And yes, it's a bit sad that I'm glad just because something the government does isn't completely wrong.
The arseholes aren't going to pay for it either way. Charging more money and adding DRM is only going to drive the non-arseholes towards arseholish behavior. This is why Ubisoft can't make money in the PC gaming area any more: no one wants to pay for that shit. People will gladly pay, if they get their moneys worth.
Hell, the newest Humble Bundle made over a million in it's first day. No DRM, no minimum price. I paid 20 bucks (although I did send most to charity: first time I've almost felt bad sending money to charity, since I also wanted to pay the developers), well over the average required for the extra games. People will pay for things. Provided the person they are buying it from doesn't insult them, especially not while they are being paid
Although the blinding effect is only temporary part of the trial will see scientists carry out further research on any potential side-effects.
So, we'll see. Also, flashbangs have been in use for a while now, and they are pretty well established to be more or less completely temporary (visually, anyways). They can induce heart attacks, but that is just the fact that non-lethal is somewhat of a sliding scale rather than an either/or. People with weak eyes could probably be damage permanently, but that is what trials are for, so again we'll see.
Oh hell yeah. Is the door pull or push? Can I lift the handle, or do I have to push it down?
And don't even get me started on automatic doors. You need differential calculus to walk through them properly: is the door going to be wide enough open for me to get through it at my present speed, given a low threshold of detection, or am I going to pull a Bieber and smash my face into it?
"Security concerns." This made me laugh, coming from Sony. Especially since it came in early 2010. It's a lie. Trotting out the "security" card just makes them look better.
Unless, of course, by "security" they meant "preventing people from hacking our bootloader." Or trying, rather.
It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision
Temporary != permanent. Which is why the US (and Britain) are already using these weapons in the field in combat.
Doesn't necessarily make it right, of course, just not a clear violation of basic human rights.
That is pretty easy. A 3-meter "wall" of light will reflect from a nice Corner Reflector straight back at them. Hell, crinkled tin-foil might even work well enough. I imagine the police using it will have eye-filters to prevent being blinded themselves, however, since some reflections will happen in any case. Assuming they aren't completely incompetent, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
but how do we know the star is forming rather than, say, dying?
You can tell because of the pixels.
The encryption systems for video are completely different than that for GPS. The military GPS signal wasn't just encrypted to add jitter: GPS was designed to help guide nuclear weapons. Obviously, they don't want that spoofed. Also, as I have stated before, the video transmissions in question were designed to be viewable by soldiers on the ground. Encrypting that would add a massive technical challenge, since you would need to get the soldiers decryption keys. The control signal itself has always been encrypted, AFAIK.
Yes, you can spoof commercial GPS systems. Military systems use an encrypted channel. That would be much harder to spoof. For obvious reasons, the system designed to guide nuclear weapons is designed against that sort of thing. I'm no expert on GPS, but I highly doubt the Iranians were able to accomplish that. I suspect they are lying to try to gain a psychological advantage. For one thing, if they actually could spoof GPS, it would be far, far better to keep it a secret.
Diesel subs are incredibly quite, since they run on pure electric motors when submerged (not quite so much when snorkeling their diesel motors, though). Even nuclear subs are generally louder, since they have an active steam cycle. They have a ton of disadvantages, but stealth is surprisingly not one of them. They can't maintain it as long as a nuclear powered sub, but still, they technically have the advantage in that area.
So they get named after successful presidents and/or people who were in the Navy. Both parts make sense. So even if he was a terrible president, being in the Navy distinguishes him enough to get a class of carriers name after him. Therefore, it was because (or at least could have been, and likely was because) he was in the Navy.
Well, one of the articles yesterday compared black holes to Cookie Monsters (as I pointed out), so... I would just be glad they didn't say something like "A LAN party uses a series of tubes to hook the play-time boxes together."
Oh, my bad. Didn't realize that was what the whole issue was about. Maybe I should consider reading TFA next time or something.
Which is odd, since Google's revenue in a single quarter is greater than the revenue of the entire music industry in a year (or approximately. Music is ~9-10 billion, Google is ~9 billion). Revenue != profit, I know, but still I should think Google would have tremendous influence in Washington. Plus, you know, the fact that they can reach most of the planet in a matter of hours with any message they so choose. I should think that would carry significant weight in Washington.
For Google? The public opinion. Google has tremendous power to lobby on their own. But if they loose public opinion, a company like Google that relies nearly 100% on the public using them on a daily basis could collapse overnight.
Not to quibble, since I fully agree, but since in this case Universal really does own the copyright (or that's what it looks like), your title would be the proper way to phrase it. Any unjustified copyright requests need to be punishable, whether the requestee owns the copyright or not. I would say especially if the use was covered by Fair Use, which this clearly was.
I would say loosing the copyright is a fair punishment, in this case. The use was clearly covered by exemptions, there is no way Universal could have not known this, so the takedown was clearly spurious. Most importantly, faulty claims need to hurt, and badly. A slap on the wrist just won't cut it.
All of what you say is true. But if you want to be the first to try out something new, or you simply have to have the latest and greatest, beta testing gives you that opportunity. Most of the time, the beta is perfectly stable anyways. Besides, it sounds like the beta testing was meant to stay internal (although I'm not going to read the article to actually find out).
Wouldn't that mean black holes aren't necessarily rare, but only that black holes near gas clouds are rare? There could be millions of them in the interstellar void, but with no gas to form an accretion disk, they would be completely invisible. And lensing effects would be incredibly difficult to detect. In fact, I thought that we only really detected most black holes if they were part of a binary system (which gives plenty of matter for x-ray radiation).
And, of course, it is absolutely impossible to see something that emits no radiation (ignoring the possibility of Hawking radiation, which is too weak to see in most cases anyways), so technically black holes aren't hard to see: they are impossible to see. We can only infer it's presence through the effect it has on matter outside the black hole itself. The x-ray radiation is not technically from the black hole itself, but rather from the effect that it's gravitational field has on incoming matter.
I'm not an astrophysicist... but I'm working on changing that.
Yeah. Unfortunately, you can't see it because the black hole sucked it up.
Really Slashdot? "Cookie Monsters"? "Interstellar treat"? Wow, I think I may have found a new low for a Slashdot summary.
Well, until tomorrow, anyways.
If you're still young, go be an idiot. That's what college is for, generally.
Just don't throw up pictures of yourself being an idiot on Facebook. Or let you friends do so. In fact, don't have Facebook at all, or have friends whom you (moderately) trust. Hell, I just graduated and I wouldn't generally go drinking without trustworthy friends (certainly not to bars), if only to make sure I got home safely if I had one too many (which may or may not have happened to me, my memory is a little... fuzzy, at times). College student or not, those kinds of pictures can and quite likely will bite you in the ass later in life. Unless you intend to do that sort of thing your whole life, in which case... go right ahead.
Making the ads louder draws attention to them. It works, and advertisers will keep doing anything that works. Even if it just draws enough attention for people to mute it, they still notice the ad. Any attention is good attention for them. I've noticed this happening on Hulu (just enough to notice and be mildly irritating), since I don't actually watch TV anymore. Of course, Hulu's ads aren't interesting to me anyways (really, a 21-year-old single guy isn't going to be interested in Pediasure, TYVM), which is a failing on their part.
Because sometimes, especially while listening to a quiet movie, you PREFER NOT TO BE SUDDENLY BLASTED WITH NOISE!!
It's annoying as hell. I do kind of agree with you though that it doesn't seem like something the government needs to regulate. But, hey, at least it isn't something actually evil (*ahem* SOPA). And yes, it's a bit sad that I'm glad just because something the government does isn't completely wrong.
The arseholes aren't going to pay for it either way. Charging more money and adding DRM is only going to drive the non-arseholes towards arseholish behavior. This is why Ubisoft can't make money in the PC gaming area any more: no one wants to pay for that shit. People will gladly pay, if they get their moneys worth.
Hell, the newest Humble Bundle made over a million in it's first day. No DRM, no minimum price. I paid 20 bucks (although I did send most to charity: first time I've almost felt bad sending money to charity, since I also wanted to pay the developers), well over the average required for the extra games. People will pay for things. Provided the person they are buying it from doesn't insult them, especially not while they are being paid
Sure do: here (notice who actually posted it, vs. who signed it). grub's "oh dear" self-response was pretty priceless.
I haven't seen Dr. Bob online for quite a while. I'm actually getting kind of concerned at this point.
Oh? Didn't you know? Dr. Bob accidentally revealed his true identity. I think he stopped trolling after that. Kinda sad too, he had a pretty good run.
Although the blinding effect is only temporary part of the trial will see scientists carry out further research on any potential side-effects.
So, we'll see. Also, flashbangs have been in use for a while now, and they are pretty well established to be more or less completely temporary (visually, anyways). They can induce heart attacks, but that is just the fact that non-lethal is somewhat of a sliding scale rather than an either/or. People with weak eyes could probably be damage permanently, but that is what trials are for, so again we'll see.
Oh hell yeah. Is the door pull or push? Can I lift the handle, or do I have to push it down?
And don't even get me started on automatic doors. You need differential calculus to walk through them properly: is the door going to be wide enough open for me to get through it at my present speed, given a low threshold of detection, or am I going to pull a Bieber and smash my face into it?
"Security concerns." This made me laugh, coming from Sony. Especially since it came in early 2010. It's a lie. Trotting out the "security" card just makes them look better.
Unless, of course, by "security" they meant "preventing people from hacking our bootloader." Or trying, rather.
It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision
Temporary != permanent. Which is why the US (and Britain) are already using these weapons in the field in combat.
Doesn't necessarily make it right, of course, just not a clear violation of basic human rights.
That is pretty easy. A 3-meter "wall" of light will reflect from a nice Corner Reflector straight back at them. Hell, crinkled tin-foil might even work well enough. I imagine the police using it will have eye-filters to prevent being blinded themselves, however, since some reflections will happen in any case. Assuming they aren't completely incompetent, of course.