Do you really want to blame the victim, because of what OS they used? Think through your argument. If you got mugged, should someone be able to tell the cops "well, look at him, not too strong... it's his fault for being such an easy target".
I don't think you understand my argument. I'm not saying that the guy who gets killed because his Windows-based radiotherapy machine overdosed him is at fault, but rather the engineer who used Windows in a life or death machine. If an engineer willingly builds something he KNOWS has serious concerns with people's well-being, then he is guilty for any deaths or injuries that occur.
At the very least, the Engineer must recognize the limitations of technology, and give proper instruction and warning devices to alert the user to the machine's operating tolerances.
Basically, if someone dies from a windows virus because an engineer/company was trying to cut a few corners, then I want their heads on pikes.
i dislike the implication that his life needs to be "turned around."
Why? He may not be a bad kid, but he's still in deep shit. Right now he probably feels like his life is over. If he's smart, he'll make the best use of this opportunity as he possibly can. If he does well, he'll actually have a chance at other opportunities in the future.
[O]ne IT Director [said] doing so would be like hiring serial-killing doctor
A little extreme on the allegories, aren't we? Virus writing is not exactly like taking out a knife and killing someone. (Although it may result in the shutdown of systems that support people's lives. I'd tend to blame this on the idiots who use Windows for those systems, though.)
As for hiring him, I think my answer would be "maybe". I certainly wouldn't hire him because of his transgressions, but rather despite them. Basically, everyone should be entitled to a second chance. If this employer believes that the guy has a lot of talent and is repentant of his past deeds, then give him another shot! He'll have to try damn hard to remove the stigma from his deeds, but try hard enough and he might just turn his life around.
vbs script running in the background, well, they don't say it but it seems obvious that GEMS is running in Windows, the most breakable OS in the world.
She has no way of knowing that her GEMS program is using multiple sets of books, because the GEMS interface draws its data from an Access database, which is hidden.
You'd think a company who's been making ATMs since their inception, would have a good understanding of cryptographic security and the "gotchas" inherent in such systems. Yet it seems that this multi-billion dollar company is utilizing nothing more than junior level Microsoft programmers. I mean, who in their right mind would write a national voting system in Microsoft Access?!?
Maybe they should claim that all their security experts were hired by Google after they took the GLAT.;-) Then they could get Congress to sanction Google instead! *rolls eyes*
(BTW, I love the "Politics" section color scheme. Can we do something similar for IT?)
Well, it finally happened. I've been modded offtopic.
Didn't that big ol' Electrohome hanging from the ceiling look just a tad suspect?
Other than the fact that it was hanging crooked? No. I figured that they added it because the computer would integrate with home entertainment. i.e. The computer could accept tapes similar to the ones that Mr. Spock used to plug in.
Just a guess, but it was more a Photoshopped image of the future.
Maybe you're right. Who knows. It certainly *looks* like something they might have "dreamed up". Just like the Hydrogen-powered 747s that Popular Science was promising a few years back.;-)
C: Well you know how these programmers are with names these days. They've got to pick something screwy. If they're not careful, they'll wind up falsifying their whois records!
A: Who's records?
C: No, WHOIS records.
A: That's what I said.
C: No, you said who's records.
A: Listen buster! I know what I said! Who's falsifying the records!
If you say so. Honestly, you do get complete free fall up until terminal velocity is reached. Not necessarily as long as this ride, but it definitely happens. Same thing with amusement park drop towers. Terminal velocity usually isn't reached by the time they begin the braking procedure.
Ok, so from a spacecraft, we can observe the Earth getting closer. As we continue observing, we note that the distance between us and the Earth is decreasing at a greater and greater rate. i.e. We are accelerating toward each other. Yet we feel no G-forces because our entire craft is accelerating at a near uniform rate.
Is it your contention that we are NOT able to observe gravitational effects in this situation, despite getting closer to the Earth?
Experiment number two: We are in a craft in orbit. we find that a blue marble below is turning. We thrust forward for a few moments and check our trajectory. Oddly enough, we find that we appear to get closer to the marble at certain periods of time. I feel no inertia, and thus am weightless inside my spacecraft.
Certainly, it's difficult to know who's orbiting whp, but is it your contention that the elliptic orbit that can be calculated from the observations is an illusion?
Never mind. I give up. Go on saying "Zero Gravity". What the hell do I care? I was only trying to educate a few people.
skydiving is not actually freefall, infact it is nothing like it.
Actually, I stated that it was a "similar" experience. I intended that for those who wished to experience the sensation of falling without paying $3000.
Other people correctly described why it is acceptable to call this zero-G and gave descriptions of why that have been generally accepted as a description of the phenomenon and you foolishly tried to correct them.
You're confusing terms again. Zero-G is a term for "Zero G-Forces". That's not the same thing as "Zero Gravity", which is an absence of gravitation forces acting upon an object.
Your subsequent posts attempted to correct physically accurate descriptions because they use commonly accepted terms for this like zero gravity (and micro gravity)
1. I only ever argued with the term "Zero Gravity". Note that every time an astronaut is interviewed about "What it's like to be in zero gravity", he always starts by saying "these days we like to call it microgravity or free-fall".
2. You are never in Zero Gravity, because there are always gravitational forces from other objects in the universe acting upon you. One can counteract Earth's gravity directly, then be in an observable position to state that the Earth is exerting zero gravity upon them. However, one can still observe gravity from other objects in the Universe, unless steps are taken to counteract these gravitational fields as well.
This is zero gravity in the frame of reference of the aircraft.
This is "micro-gravity" in the frame of the aircraft. And if you look through a window, you'll easily find that you're actually in a "Free-fall" frame of reference. i.e. You and the planet are getting closer together. Because all frames of reference are equally valid, we don't know who's falling toward who, but we can observe that the two bodies are getting closer.
Actually, the Judge did give M$ enough rope to hang themselves. The findings were NEVER challenged, only the punishment. The appeals court felt that splitting the company was too harsh of a sentence and would be bad for the open market. Thus they ordered that a different punishment be found.
Actually, there's no evidence that AutoZone did what SCO claims. SCO claim that AutoZone did this has been taken by some in the media as fact. Those who actually worked on the SCO -> Linux conversion state that the claim is ridiculous and that they used no such code.
A PhD you say? Putting aside the standard joke of "all my friends have PhD's too", would you like to explain how falling toward the Earth == zero gravity? Here's a hint: it doesn't. What relativity DOES tell us is this:
It is impossible to tell if the observer is falling toward the planet, or the planet is falling toward the observer.
That's it. The Earth's gravity still has a measurable influence on any object *EXCEPT* one which completely cancels out the Earth's gravitational forces by way of competing acceleration. And even if you did cancel out the Earth's gravity, you'd still have the Sun, the Moon, Jupiter, and every other particle in the universe to deal with.
The term I believe you're thinking of is not "Zero Gravity", but rather "microgravity" or "Zero G-Forces". i.e. You and the Earth are attracting each other, but you don't feel the inertial difference.
True, but the judge can order a close to SCO's prosecution of IBM. At which point the tables will turn, and SCO will find itself defending its actions.
the air does not rush past you in the airplane and that is why it is called "zero gravity"
No, it's called FREE-FALL. ZERO GRAVITY IS AN OUTMODED TERM THAT INCORRECTLY DESCRIBES A COMPLETE LACK OF GRAVITATIONAL FORCES. YOU ARE NOT EXPERIENCING ZERO GRAVITY, YOU ARE EXPERIENCING ZERO G-FORCES. I.E. THE PLANE AND YOU ARE FALLING AT THE SAME RATE.
Pardon me for YELLING, but you're the five hundredth...urrrgggg......PERSON... to get it WRONG!!!
it's ok to have little understanding of physics. but to parade your ignorance endlessly means you are nothing but a troll. bye
* AKAImBatman shakes his head
Amazing, simply amazing. People around here would apparently prefer to believe in nonsense like "Zero Gravity" and the "Tooth Fairy" instead of being helpfully informed of correct terminology and reasons behind it.
Then again, this is Slashdot. God forbid that the residents want to learn and think.
So what's your point? You seem to be agreeing with me that the term "Zero Gravity" is incorrect, and "free-fall" is what it should be called. Not sure how that displays a "flawed understanding of physics".
By necessity, Judges are very patient creatures. Don't be surprised if the judge waits until SCO is done hanging themselves before he slams the case shut. If he doesn't give them enough rope, they could start all over in an appeals court.
"Also last week, SCO lawyers successfully fended off a filing made last week by AutoZone that would have put an end to any discovery proceedings in its case."
makes it look like SCO is the "good guy" here, getting beat up by all these evil Linux^W auto-part makers.
Orbit in "space" or even floating in deep-space is still "free-fall".
The only difference is that relativity says that you have no way of determining if you're falling toward the planet/star/guy next to you, or if it's falling toward you.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really want to blame the victim, because of what OS they used? Think through your argument. If you got mugged, should someone be able to tell the cops "well, look at him, not too strong... it's his fault for being such an easy target".
I don't think you understand my argument. I'm not saying that the guy who gets killed because his Windows-based radiotherapy machine overdosed him is at fault, but rather the engineer who used Windows in a life or death machine. If an engineer willingly builds something he KNOWS has serious concerns with people's well-being, then he is guilty for any deaths or injuries that occur.
At the very least, the Engineer must recognize the limitations of technology, and give proper instruction and warning devices to alert the user to the machine's operating tolerances.
Basically, if someone dies from a windows virus because an engineer/company was trying to cut a few corners, then I want their heads on pikes.
i dislike the implication that his life needs to be "turned around."
Why? He may not be a bad kid, but he's still in deep shit. Right now he probably feels like his life is over. If he's smart, he'll make the best use of this opportunity as he possibly can. If he does well, he'll actually have a chance at other opportunities in the future.
Ergo, it's a chance to "turn his life around".
[O]ne IT Director [said] doing so would be like hiring serial-killing doctor
A little extreme on the allegories, aren't we? Virus writing is not exactly like taking out a knife and killing someone. (Although it may result in the shutdown of systems that support people's lives. I'd tend to blame this on the idiots who use Windows for those systems, though.)
As for hiring him, I think my answer would be "maybe". I certainly wouldn't hire him because of his transgressions, but rather despite them. Basically, everyone should be entitled to a second chance. If this employer believes that the guy has a lot of talent and is repentant of his past deeds, then give him another shot! He'll have to try damn hard to remove the stigma from his deeds, but try hard enough and he might just turn his life around.
Actually, the Diebold machines were partly responsible for the 2000 election fiasco.
vbs script running in the background, well, they don't say it but it seems obvious that GEMS is running in Windows, the most breakable OS in the world.
It's worse than that. From this link:
She has no way of knowing that her GEMS program is using multiple sets of books, because the GEMS interface draws its data from an Access database, which is hidden.
Getting a warm and fuzzy feeling yet?
You'd think a company who's been making ATMs since their inception, would have a good understanding of cryptographic security and the "gotchas" inherent in such systems. Yet it seems that this multi-billion dollar company is utilizing nothing more than junior level Microsoft programmers. I mean, who in their right mind would write a national voting system in Microsoft Access?!?
;-) Then they could get Congress to sanction Google instead! *rolls eyes*
Maybe they should claim that all their security experts were hired by Google after they took the GLAT.
(BTW, I love the "Politics" section color scheme. Can we do something similar for IT?)
Hmm... seems you're right. Must have been a troll trying to see what kind of silliness they could get Slashdot to put on the front page.
Well, it finally happened. I've been modded offtopic.
;-)
Didn't that big ol' Electrohome hanging from the ceiling look just a tad suspect?
Other than the fact that it was hanging crooked? No. I figured that they added it because the computer would integrate with home entertainment. i.e. The computer could accept tapes similar to the ones that Mr. Spock used to plug in.
Just a guess, but it was more a Photoshopped image of the future.
Maybe you're right. Who knows. It certainly *looks* like something they might have "dreamed up". Just like the Hydrogen-powered 747s that Popular Science was promising a few years back.
...what happened to the computer of the future story? That was pretty cool stuff, guys!
C: Well you know how these programmers are with names these days. They've got to pick something screwy. If they're not careful, they'll wind up falsifying their whois records!
A: Who's records?
C: No, WHOIS records.
A: That's what I said.
C: No, you said who's records.
A: Listen buster! I know what I said! Who's falsifying the records!
C: WHOIS RECORDS!
A: ARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!
"Always Look on the Bright Side of the Screen"
Zero-G is a commonly accepted term.
4 1.html 4 67.htm
That's because Zero-G is NOT Zero Gravity. Why is that so hard to understand?
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/Space/archives/0007
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99
http://www.astrodigital.org/space/zgr.html
Sigh, skydiving is ***NOTHING*** like freefall
If you say so. Honestly, you do get complete free fall up until terminal velocity is reached. Not necessarily as long as this ride, but it definitely happens. Same thing with amusement park drop towers. Terminal velocity usually isn't reached by the time they begin the braking procedure.
Oh for crying out loud.
Ok, so from a spacecraft, we can observe the Earth getting closer. As we continue observing, we note that the distance between us and the Earth is decreasing at a greater and greater rate. i.e. We are accelerating toward each other. Yet we feel no G-forces because our entire craft is accelerating at a near uniform rate.
Is it your contention that we are NOT able to observe gravitational effects in this situation, despite getting closer to the Earth?
Experiment number two: We are in a craft in orbit. we find that a blue marble below is turning. We thrust forward for a few moments and check our trajectory. Oddly enough, we find that we appear to get closer to the marble at certain periods of time. I feel no inertia, and thus am weightless inside my spacecraft.
Certainly, it's difficult to know who's orbiting whp, but is it your contention that the elliptic orbit that can be calculated from the observations is an illusion?
Never mind. I give up. Go on saying "Zero Gravity". What the hell do I care? I was only trying to educate a few people.
skydiving is not actually freefall, infact it is nothing like it.
Actually, I stated that it was a "similar" experience. I intended that for those who wished to experience the sensation of falling without paying $3000.
Other people correctly described why it is acceptable to call this zero-G and gave descriptions of why that have been generally accepted as a description of the phenomenon and you foolishly tried to correct them.
You're confusing terms again. Zero-G is a term for "Zero G-Forces". That's not the same thing as "Zero Gravity", which is an absence of gravitation forces acting upon an object.
Your subsequent posts attempted to correct physically accurate descriptions because they use commonly accepted terms for this like zero gravity (and micro gravity)
1. I only ever argued with the term "Zero Gravity". Note that every time an astronaut is interviewed about "What it's like to be in zero gravity", he always starts by saying "these days we like to call it microgravity or free-fall".
2. You are never in Zero Gravity, because there are always gravitational forces from other objects in the universe acting upon you. One can counteract Earth's gravity directly, then be in an observable position to state that the Earth is exerting zero gravity upon them. However, one can still observe gravity from other objects in the Universe, unless steps are taken to counteract these gravitational fields as well.
This is zero gravity in the frame of reference of the aircraft.
This is "micro-gravity" in the frame of the aircraft. And if you look through a window, you'll easily find that you're actually in a "Free-fall" frame of reference. i.e. You and the planet are getting closer together. Because all frames of reference are equally valid, we don't know who's falling toward who, but we can observe that the two bodies are getting closer.
Actually, the Judge did give M$ enough rope to hang themselves. The findings were NEVER challenged, only the punishment. The appeals court felt that splitting the company was too harsh of a sentence and would be bad for the open market. Thus they ordered that a different punishment be found.
Actually, there's no evidence that AutoZone did what SCO claims. SCO claim that AutoZone did this has been taken by some in the media as fact. Those who actually worked on the SCO -> Linux conversion state that the claim is ridiculous and that they used no such code.
A PhD you say? Putting aside the standard joke of "all my friends have PhD's too", would you like to explain how falling toward the Earth == zero gravity? Here's a hint: it doesn't. What relativity DOES tell us is this:
It is impossible to tell if the observer is falling toward the planet, or the planet is falling toward the observer.
That's it. The Earth's gravity still has a measurable influence on any object *EXCEPT* one which completely cancels out the Earth's gravitational forces by way of competing acceleration. And even if you did cancel out the Earth's gravity, you'd still have the Sun, the Moon, Jupiter, and every other particle in the universe to deal with.
The term I believe you're thinking of is not "Zero Gravity", but rather "microgravity" or "Zero G-Forces". i.e. You and the Earth are attracting each other, but you don't feel the inertial difference.
True, but the judge can order a close to SCO's prosecution of IBM. At which point the tables will turn, and SCO will find itself defending its actions.
the air does not rush past you in the airplane and that is why it is called "zero gravity"
...urrrgggg... ...PERSON... to get it WRONG!!!
No, it's called FREE-FALL. ZERO GRAVITY IS AN OUTMODED TERM THAT INCORRECTLY DESCRIBES A COMPLETE LACK OF GRAVITATIONAL FORCES. YOU ARE NOT EXPERIENCING ZERO GRAVITY, YOU ARE EXPERIENCING ZERO G-FORCES. I.E. THE PLANE AND YOU ARE FALLING AT THE SAME RATE.
Pardon me for YELLING, but you're the five hundredth
Now excuse me while I go swear up a storm.
it's ok to have little understanding of physics. but to parade your ignorance endlessly means you are nothing but a troll. bye
* AKAImBatman shakes his head
Amazing, simply amazing. People around here would apparently prefer to believe in nonsense like "Zero Gravity" and the "Tooth Fairy" instead of being helpfully informed of correct terminology and reasons behind it.
Then again, this is Slashdot. God forbid that the residents want to learn and think.
So what's your point? You seem to be agreeing with me that the term "Zero Gravity" is incorrect, and "free-fall" is what it should be called. Not sure how that displays a "flawed understanding of physics".
By necessity, Judges are very patient creatures. Don't be surprised if the judge waits until SCO is done hanging themselves before he slams the case shut. If he doesn't give them enough rope, they could start all over in an appeals court.
Indeed. For example:
"Also last week, SCO lawyers successfully fended off a filing made last week by AutoZone that would have put an end to any discovery proceedings in its case."
makes it look like SCO is the "good guy" here, getting beat up by all these evil Linux^W auto-part makers.
It was Base64 "encryption" (*snicker*)
Orbit in "space" or even floating in deep-space is still "free-fall".
The only difference is that relativity says that you have no way of determining if you're falling toward the planet/star/guy next to you, or if it's falling toward you.