This was my thought as well. Some acceleration can be fun, but it is very uncomfortable beyond a certain point, and enough to kill you would be extremely painful. You want death to be either non-violent or extremely quick, if possible. This is neither. And several minutes of anticipation? Fuck no. I'll take a morphine OD (which seems painless from what I know of it), if it comes to that.
Its certainly FAR easier to add controls to flash than add a whole new rendering and event system to a browser.
Really? You must have access to the Flash source code. Well, what are you waiting for? Where are these controls? (And yes, I know Flash has some privacy controls now. Not my point.)
There is no technical or logical reason why a browser would always be better than Flash player. The fact that you think simply because its not a plugin? that it would be more secure/better shows you just dont get how software works.
Ah, now I see. You've never actually used Flash before, especially not on Linux. Buggy, slow, crashing piece of crap is being far to generous. And no, I don't expect all the browser makes to make secure browsers. I do expect them to have different vulnerabilities, making malware harder to create, and to actually, you know, be able to fix them. Nor did I say such a thing exists. My point was that no matter how secure a browser may be, it doesn't matter if it is loading a plug-in. Two attack vectors is always worse than one.
Probably because of compatibility, or rather lack thereof. IE 8 for one doesn't support SVG at all, and every other browser seems to support different parts of the specs. HTML 5 isn't finished yet.
Good for you. However, malware tends to rely not on hitting individuals, but on hitting large groups. I very, very much doubt people are writing Flash malware to target Linux, or for that matter that you visit many sites which would expose you to malware. I trust Firefox (well, Opera in my case) to block malware much more than I trust Adobe. And plugins just add one more possibility for malware. With a browser you only have one possible vector, with Flash you get two.
Except most sane, security, stability, and privacy conscious people want Flash to die a quick and painless death. HTML 5 offers better performance, better security, and better privacy controls (at least in theory) because it depends solely on the browser. A secure browser = secure HTML 5. No matter how good the browser, it cannot control Flash except to disable it. Therefore, competition would be good, if Flash and HTML 5 were equal. They are not.
But, unless he omitted something, the "submarine prior art" can't be used to invalidate a patent, nor to claim the patent for yourself. All it does is make you (or someone you sell the "trade secret" to), immune to being sued. I'm quite confused how that is a bad thing. It doesn't give as much incentive to publicize the technique, to be used by everyone after the patent period, but given the way patent law was before, that didn't really help before. Basically, it seems that this just makes a company, who doesn't publish their art, immune to patent suits, as long as they were using the art in question, but they cannot invalidate a patent someone else filed. Again, this is unles I am completely misreading what he said or he omitted a major point.
The only way this benefits large companies more than small companies is because large companies can afford to maintain and develop more such art. That is all. So basically it benefits large companies the same way as patent law in general does: they can maintain more of it. All in all, however, this (part of the) reform seems good, since trolls can't file for a patent afterwards and sue some company who was actually using it before them, but didn't publish it.
So what you're saying is that we need legal reform of the way patents are handled in court, not just reform of the patenting system itself. That would be the only way to handle the "license is cheaper than lawsuit" problem. Maybe make the troll put up cash, which they loose if they can't show in court that their patent is valid? Making invalid lawsuits very expensive for the trolls.
In the business market, yes they still have lock-in. Hell, the small business I work at sells Linux appliances, and we still absolutely need Windows for many applications. Linux just doesn't have equivalent business applications, pure and simple.
And Windows 8, for all it's many changes, is still almost identical functionally to 7 (which might mean it won't sell well... but we'll see) they have just integrated a tablet-friendly interface with it. Again, how well that actually works and sells, we'll see, but saying "it isn't Windows" is like saying Vista wasn't Windows because it has a transparent taskbar. People have really blown the whole Metro thing way way out of proportion. And no, I'm not a Windows fan: I'm just a realist. I would love it if Linux could replace Windows, but it cannot (yet), no matter how much people on/. wish it could. For web browsing and email, sure. Business and video game? Hell no. Not there, and won't be for a while, if ever. Unfortunate but the truth.
No, the fact that it will very very soon go to eleven does not make your browser any better! I realize you are getting version envy (IE 9, Chrome 14, Opera 11) but believe it or not, NO ONE GIVES A DAMN. Except the Mozilla devs, apparently.
A faster release cycle is fine. Just not one that increments the main version number, especially when (perhaps poorly coded) extensions break. When you do that, it just looks like a "mine's bigger!" contest. Which I think it is. And that is sad.
If you think those are creepy, you should see the rejected ad for the Zune. Colored paint shooting out of a guys ass onto a wall. Yeah, it got rejected... but it kinda makes you wonder where the threshold is. MS has terrible marketing. The downside to their lock-in on Windows, I suppose: they aren't used to having to market their product any more.
Come on, be logical. The only adequate response to a not-yet-presented attack vector that requires a packet sniffer on the network and injected Javascript in the webpage while taking hours to decrypt a single cookie is to stop using the Internet altogether until it gets fixed. Based on Slashdot user comments, it's the only reasonable thing to do.
Many people who contract HIV are neither stupid nor ignorant, but they are unfortunate enough to live in a country where protection is not available or is socially stigmatized (often due to religions imported from the western world) and are having promiscuous sex or sex with promiscuous people.
FTFY. Ok, yeah, people can be born with it (which sucks) or get it through rape or blood transfusions... but simply, you know, restraining yourself and not acting like a rabbit generally makes you invulnerable to, oh, every STD ever. God forbid we should oppose people's right to have as much sex as they want with whomever they want, though. I would argue that having promiscuous sex counts as "stupid" when you can't or don't use protection (or possibly know you partner is clean).
For that matter, HIV is supposed to have originated from monkeys. Yeah, I'll let your mind imagine how an STD migrated from a monkey to a human...
Exactly. One of the problems with the police system is that so many people don't even realize what their rights are. They assume, for instance, that if a cop asks to search their car, they have to let them. In fact they don't and you can (and probably should) tell them "No." Since so many people just go ahead and let them, it looks suspicious if you say no, and then they try to find something to book you with (with so many laws on the books, it is generally possible to find something that a person is doing that is illegal.) This gives the cops a sense of entitlement. A broken system, to be sure, but not entirely the cops fault (to be fair, most people who refuse searches probably do have something to hide, for the above mentioned reason) but they shouldn't assume that.
I think it's pretty obvious that, as of right now, your real wallet isn't going anywhere. However, technology has to start somewhere (i.e. even before widespread adoption) and eventually, tech like this will be usable nearly anywhere. Like credit cards are now, but weren't when they first started.
So what's the benefit now? Not much. What will be the benefit? Potentially a lot.
You know, for some reason I assumed IR reflections (i.e. the beam scattering off a surface, which can be dangerous even in a 200mW laser) would be less dangerous than the reflections from a visible-spectrum laser (of course the beam directly into the eyes will still blind), but come to think of it I don't really know and can't find anything with a quick Google search (most sites seem to be explaining the danger of improperly filtered beams letting out more IR intense light and not prompting as much of a blink reaction as they should.) Are scattered IR beams as dangerous (or more so)? Do the beams even reflect well? I had assumed they didn't.
It's a public area, privacy in a public area is not reasonably expected (OP is flamebait). Not to say the cameras are good or even perfectly legal, just that this isn't a "search" that would require a warrant.
Or you could buy a single higher-powered infrared laser. Wouldn't recommend a visible spectrum laser (although something in the 35mW range might work) because they could also blind you, given the reflection. The camera might have an infrared filter that could negate the effectiveness, IDK. Not that it would matter with a, say, 200+mW infrared (it would just burn through a filter). I'm not sure a bundle would work very well (the total energy is spread out more, not concentrated on the sensor.) It'd certainly work temporarily, at least.
However, the ISS orbits once every 1.5 hours, so the Earth's revolution would be pretty insignificant in this video (which looks like about half an orbit). Still very confusing, since the ISS is in a LEO making the overall patterns difficult to see. That and the cloud cover obscuring lots of details. My best guess agrees with the OP, it seems to be going from somewhere near the arctic along the west coast of the US (you can make out the coast of California pretty clearly, and see Central America) and what I'm pretty sure is the length of Chile down at the bottom. It isn't completely polar. Orbital dynamics, however, are pretty complex.
Or it might not have met quality control specifications, or maybe it was a demo prototype, or maybe someone hooked up power wrong and blew out the circuitry (I mention it because a relative who works on satellites actually had a client do that). Wikipedia also says there was one failed launch attempt, depending on how catastrophic the failure was they might have recovered the satellite itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Damnit, why did you have to go and say that? Well, lets just hope no Facebook devs read Slashdot...
Ah, so an actual stairway to heaven, then.
This was my thought as well. Some acceleration can be fun, but it is very uncomfortable beyond a certain point, and enough to kill you would be extremely painful. You want death to be either non-violent or extremely quick, if possible. This is neither. And several minutes of anticipation? Fuck no. I'll take a morphine OD (which seems painless from what I know of it), if it comes to that.
Its certainly FAR easier to add controls to flash than add a whole new rendering and event system to a browser.
Really? You must have access to the Flash source code. Well, what are you waiting for? Where are these controls? (And yes, I know Flash has some privacy controls now. Not my point.)
There is no technical or logical reason why a browser would always be better than Flash player. The fact that you think simply because its not a plugin? that it would be more secure/better shows you just dont get how software works.
Ah, now I see. You've never actually used Flash before, especially not on Linux. Buggy, slow, crashing piece of crap is being far to generous. And no, I don't expect all the browser makes to make secure browsers. I do expect them to have different vulnerabilities, making malware harder to create, and to actually, you know, be able to fix them. Nor did I say such a thing exists. My point was that no matter how secure a browser may be, it doesn't matter if it is loading a plug-in. Two attack vectors is always worse than one.
Well, at least he has brain cells. Unlike you. HTML is write once, work anywhere you can run a browser.
Probably because of compatibility, or rather lack thereof. IE 8 for one doesn't support SVG at all, and every other browser seems to support different parts of the specs. HTML 5 isn't finished yet.
Good for you. However, malware tends to rely not on hitting individuals, but on hitting large groups. I very, very much doubt people are writing Flash malware to target Linux, or for that matter that you visit many sites which would expose you to malware. I trust Firefox (well, Opera in my case) to block malware much more than I trust Adobe. And plugins just add one more possibility for malware. With a browser you only have one possible vector, with Flash you get two.
Except most sane, security, stability, and privacy conscious people want Flash to die a quick and painless death. HTML 5 offers better performance, better security, and better privacy controls (at least in theory) because it depends solely on the browser. A secure browser = secure HTML 5. No matter how good the browser, it cannot control Flash except to disable it. Therefore, competition would be good, if Flash and HTML 5 were equal. They are not.
But, unless he omitted something, the "submarine prior art" can't be used to invalidate a patent, nor to claim the patent for yourself. All it does is make you (or someone you sell the "trade secret" to), immune to being sued. I'm quite confused how that is a bad thing. It doesn't give as much incentive to publicize the technique, to be used by everyone after the patent period, but given the way patent law was before, that didn't really help before. Basically, it seems that this just makes a company, who doesn't publish their art, immune to patent suits, as long as they were using the art in question, but they cannot invalidate a patent someone else filed. Again, this is unles I am completely misreading what he said or he omitted a major point.
The only way this benefits large companies more than small companies is because large companies can afford to maintain and develop more such art. That is all. So basically it benefits large companies the same way as patent law in general does: they can maintain more of it. All in all, however, this (part of the) reform seems good, since trolls can't file for a patent afterwards and sue some company who was actually using it before them, but didn't publish it.
So what you're saying is that we need legal reform of the way patents are handled in court, not just reform of the patenting system itself. That would be the only way to handle the "license is cheaper than lawsuit" problem. Maybe make the troll put up cash, which they loose if they can't show in court that their patent is valid? Making invalid lawsuits very expensive for the trolls.
In the business market, yes they still have lock-in. Hell, the small business I work at sells Linux appliances, and we still absolutely need Windows for many applications. Linux just doesn't have equivalent business applications, pure and simple.
And Windows 8, for all it's many changes, is still almost identical functionally to 7 (which might mean it won't sell well... but we'll see) they have just integrated a tablet-friendly interface with it. Again, how well that actually works and sells, we'll see, but saying "it isn't Windows" is like saying Vista wasn't Windows because it has a transparent taskbar. People have really blown the whole Metro thing way way out of proportion. And no, I'm not a Windows fan: I'm just a realist. I would love it if Linux could replace Windows, but it cannot (yet), no matter how much people on /. wish it could. For web browsing and email, sure. Business and video game? Hell no. Not there, and won't be for a while, if ever. Unfortunate but the truth.
No, the fact that it will very very soon go to eleven does not make your browser any better! I realize you are getting version envy (IE 9, Chrome 14, Opera 11) but believe it or not, NO ONE GIVES A DAMN. Except the Mozilla devs, apparently.
A faster release cycle is fine. Just not one that increments the main version number, especially when (perhaps poorly coded) extensions break. When you do that, it just looks like a "mine's bigger!" contest. Which I think it is. And that is sad.
If you think those are creepy, you should see the rejected ad for the Zune. Colored paint shooting out of a guys ass onto a wall. Yeah, it got rejected... but it kinda makes you wonder where the threshold is. MS has terrible marketing. The downside to their lock-in on Windows, I suppose: they aren't used to having to market their product any more.
Come on, be logical. The only adequate response to a not-yet-presented attack vector that requires a packet sniffer on the network and injected Javascript in the webpage while taking hours to decrypt a single cookie is to stop using the Internet altogether until it gets fixed. Based on Slashdot user comments, it's the only reasonable thing to do.
Many people who contract HIV are neither stupid nor ignorant, but they are unfortunate enough to live in a country where protection is not available or is socially stigmatized (often due to religions imported from the western world) and are having promiscuous sex or sex with promiscuous people.
FTFY. Ok, yeah, people can be born with it (which sucks) or get it through rape or blood transfusions... but simply, you know, restraining yourself and not acting like a rabbit generally makes you invulnerable to, oh, every STD ever. God forbid we should oppose people's right to have as much sex as they want with whomever they want, though. I would argue that having promiscuous sex counts as "stupid" when you can't or don't use protection (or possibly know you partner is clean).
For that matter, HIV is supposed to have originated from monkeys. Yeah, I'll let your mind imagine how an STD migrated from a monkey to a human...
Exactly. One of the problems with the police system is that so many people don't even realize what their rights are. They assume, for instance, that if a cop asks to search their car, they have to let them. In fact they don't and you can (and probably should) tell them "No." Since so many people just go ahead and let them, it looks suspicious if you say no, and then they try to find something to book you with (with so many laws on the books, it is generally possible to find something that a person is doing that is illegal.) This gives the cops a sense of entitlement. A broken system, to be sure, but not entirely the cops fault (to be fair, most people who refuse searches probably do have something to hide, for the above mentioned reason) but they shouldn't assume that.
I think it's pretty obvious that, as of right now, your real wallet isn't going anywhere. However, technology has to start somewhere (i.e. even before widespread adoption) and eventually, tech like this will be usable nearly anywhere. Like credit cards are now, but weren't when they first started.
So what's the benefit now? Not much. What will be the benefit? Potentially a lot.
Well, Al Franken is a comedian...
You know, for some reason I assumed IR reflections (i.e. the beam scattering off a surface, which can be dangerous even in a 200mW laser) would be less dangerous than the reflections from a visible-spectrum laser (of course the beam directly into the eyes will still blind), but come to think of it I don't really know and can't find anything with a quick Google search (most sites seem to be explaining the danger of improperly filtered beams letting out more IR intense light and not prompting as much of a blink reaction as they should.) Are scattered IR beams as dangerous (or more so)? Do the beams even reflect well? I had assumed they didn't.
I'd wear protective eye-wear in any case.
It's a public area, privacy in a public area is not reasonably expected (OP is flamebait). Not to say the cameras are good or even perfectly legal, just that this isn't a "search" that would require a warrant.
Or you could buy a single higher-powered infrared laser. Wouldn't recommend a visible spectrum laser (although something in the 35mW range might work) because they could also blind you, given the reflection. The camera might have an infrared filter that could negate the effectiveness, IDK. Not that it would matter with a, say, 200+mW infrared (it would just burn through a filter). I'm not sure a bundle would work very well (the total energy is spread out more, not concentrated on the sensor.) It'd certainly work temporarily, at least.
However, the ISS orbits once every 1.5 hours, so the Earth's revolution would be pretty insignificant in this video (which looks like about half an orbit). Still very confusing, since the ISS is in a LEO making the overall patterns difficult to see. That and the cloud cover obscuring lots of details. My best guess agrees with the OP, it seems to be going from somewhere near the arctic along the west coast of the US (you can make out the coast of California pretty clearly, and see Central America) and what I'm pretty sure is the length of Chile down at the bottom. It isn't completely polar. Orbital dynamics, however, are pretty complex.
How are we supposed to kill it if it's self-healing? Now it will never die!
Or it might not have met quality control specifications, or maybe it was a demo prototype, or maybe someone hooked up power wrong and blew out the circuitry (I mention it because a relative who works on satellites actually had a client do that). Wikipedia also says there was one failed launch attempt, depending on how catastrophic the failure was they might have recovered the satellite itself.
I believe they actually dropped the film in capsules back to earth to be developed. Inconvenience really doesn't bother the intelligence community.