Which is exactly my point. We would have had the chance to shoot down the planes as soon as they started flying low in the city. The Air Force would already have been too late. Even if we hadn't figured it out with the first plane, we could have shot down the other three even if they were on final run. The terrorists deliberately tried to synchronize the attacks so that the window of opportunity would already have closed by the time we realized what they were doing.
Regardless, giving the power you described to the state would be a crime. If you still trust them, you deserve everything you get.
Here's the question that everyone needs to consider. Which is the lesser of two evils:
Giving the government the power to track and destroy any airborne object.
-OR-
Letting the government trample on rights and destroy peoples lives just to prevent airborne threats from being created in the first place.
I'd rather have the former myself. It's not like you're giving them something they don't already have. Mach 3 fighter jets deployable anywhere, tactical nukes, satellite guided cruise missiles, ICBMs that can land on your house, etc. What could they do that they can't do now?
Fighter jets are normally scrambled in less than 5 minutes the instant a commercial jet is off course
But that didn't happen in this case. A Star Wars system would have given us right up until the planes collided to actually shoot them down. That's 5 minutes that the Air Force can't give you. Yes, you probably would have injured quite a few people on the ground. It still would have been nowhere near the number of people injured in the collisions and subsequent collapsing of the towers.
While I realize that some of the Star Wars technology was Pie in The Sky stuff meant to scare the USSR, I really think we should complete it. Trying to stop missile launches or radioactive materials from getting into the hands of terrorists can't be done without stepping over people's rights. (Generally considered a BAD thing by the US Constitution.)
Now if we had particle lasers in the sky that could track consumer planes and shoot down threatening bogeys, we'd have a much better defense than hoping the pilot sees the weapon and executes a barrel roll (haha).
This would also allow us to shoot down friendlies that go rouge. (e.g. 9/11 plane attacks)
The only software I've ever seen with that label has been from Microsoft. There's plenty of hardware with that label, but when it comes to software, Microsoft doesn't share. Besides that, there are no real standards to live up to. The Nintendo Seal of Quality wasn't just "It uses the newest APIs". It was a actual scoring of a product done by human beings. If the product failed to meet Nintendo's standards (for whatever reasons, some perhaps made up on the spot to handle the differences in the game) it would have to be fixed or the product couldn't ship. I don't see Microsoft preventing anyone from shipping anything.
Unfortunately the crew encountered an unexpected solar flare and was doused with radiation.
I believe that's why every Sci-Fi book in existence refers to a small closet lined with lead that the astronauts huddle into in the case of solar flares. That way you can protect against normal radiation levels easily, and wait out emergency conditions without adding a significant amount of weight.
BTW, I read Red Mars. Let's just say that I was not impressed. I just don't see the people we send up there degrading into nudist, eco-terrorists. Sure, you may get those eventually (uh-huh, right) but most certainly not with your first colony!
Except for the fact that you want to reuse that water. Closed systems like space ships need water purifiers and dehydrators to reprocess wastes excreted by the human body. Otherwise, you'd never be able to carry enough water for the trip. Similar thing with Oxygen. The CO2 must be reprocessed so that the inhabitants can breath.
Also, you wouldn't want to store your drinking water there, as some radiation can hang around in the water and become dangerous to the crew.
You're right. *phew* I'm confusing Gamma radiation with neutron emissions. However, our sun is a giant fission/fusion reactor. Shouldn't there be some neutron emissions? And what about neutrino radiation? Can that be managed via EM fields?
Even if this was TV, the deflector is the wrong tool for the job. The deflector sweeps particles out of the direct line of travel to prevent major accidents. That's very different from the shielding they obviously employ against radiation. If they didn't use some form of shielding, they would happily roast from their own engines! Most likely, they use some sort of EM field (built into the SIF maybe?) that pushes radiation around and away from the ship.
Now for the crux of the problem. Wouldn't an EM field only protect against some types of radiation? Both Alpha and Beta rays consist of charged particles that can be redirected via electromagnetic means. However, Gamma radiation consists of nuetrons. Nuetrons are inert and won't react to an EM field. (Or will they?) As a result, a significant amount of mass would still be needed as shielding.
Water is one of the best radiation protectors. By filling the double hull with water (and compartmentalizing against breaches) you could effectively shield an entire crew. Some form of EM "bubble" technology would also work, but it would be much more difficult to implement.
Oh, and they should use nuclear engines like NERVA or Orion. That way the extra weight of the water is less important, not to mention that the craft may be able to reserve enough fuel for emergency maneuvers.
Alright. I've cooled down. Let me take another whack at reducing the confusion over the GPL license. Here's the paragraph in question:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
In all reality, nothing but the GPL gives the user ANY rights to the software. Copyright law would normally forbid the user the software in absence of an agreement to transfer a copy. What this paragraph is implying is that you won't be prosecuted for using the software (especially since it would be difficult to prove that someone didn't acccept the terms of which there are none), but you could be prosectuted for violating the terms of redistribution.
Violation of the terms of redistribution results in one of two charges:
1. The user agreed to the license and violated it. The user can now be taken to court so that a judge may force compensation.
2. The user did not agree to the license and is illegally pirating software to which they have no title or license.
There you have it. Contract law as it relates to the GPL, in a nutshell.
Just because you can't run afoul of it through normal use doesn't mean you don't have to agree to it upfront. Does anyone around here even take ten minutes to study contract law before shooting their mouths off?! I stated the facts of contract law over and over and over in my replies. WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND? Two parties enter in an agreement. As long as the agreement is followed, there's no problem. This is SEPARATE FROM WHAT THE AGREEMENT ALLOWS OR DISALLOWS. Just because the agreement only bothers to cover redistribution DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THE AGREEMENT. IF THE AGREEMENT IS NOT MADE, BUT THE PRODUCT IS STILL PROVIDED, THEN THE RECEIVER HAS FULL RIGHTS TO THE PRODUCT.
Period. End of story. Got a problem with it? Talk to a lawyer. Hopefully he'll use a 2x4 to beat some sense into your head.
Let me repeat myself. The GPL is a license that defines how you may use the software. The only rights it mitigates are ones dealing with redistribution. If you fail to attach a contract to the relationship at the time of providing a product or service, you may lose your right to enforce the terms of your contract.
As an example, let's say that I (as the author/owner) give you a copy of a movie on DVD. Once I have given it to you, you might go out and resell it (possibly for a profit). Now that you have it, I can't go back and state that you can't resell it. If I wanted to attach that condition, I should have done so before giving you the movie. This holds true because the transfer of the movie was considered an agreement between two parties. I agreed to give you the movie and allow you to use it, subject to copyright laws. You or I may modify that agreement, but only at the time of the agreement. If I want to modify the agreement at a later date, I must reserve that right at the time of the transaction.
Attempting to modify an agreement after it has been made is considered prejudical to the other party. The one exception is if both parties mutally agree to a modification of their agreement. This modification is actually a new agreement that changes or invalidates the original agreement.
Now a contract (of which a license is a sub-type) is simply a written agreement. This is preferred over a verbal agreement (which is still legally binding, btw) because it offers proof that an agreement was made, and allows a dispute to be solved without bringing into question whether the agreement was ever transacted. If you watch many of these small claims shows (People's Court, Judge Judy, etc.) you'll note that many of the arguments stem from lack of proof of an agreement. Thus the judge is forced to divine if an agreement ever took place, and if it did, what points do both sides admit to?
In summary, the idea that you don't have to agree to the GPL because you are not redistributing is rediculous. If such were the case, the GPL would immediately become invalid. You are confusing the fact that the GPL does not mitigate your normal usage of software with the fact that the GPL does mitigate your redistribution of software. These two are not mutally exclusive.
If by "use" you mean "run", you are absolutely incorrect. You are only required to accept the GPL if you want to distribute the software.
Um... no. If you don't agree to licensing terms, then you aren't bound by them. The GPL terms are a *condition of giving you the software*. If a judge found out that someone didn't agree to the terms of a license, and you told people it was okay to use it anyway, he'd laugh you out of the court!
To quote from the GPL (which you should read): "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted..."
And to interpret it for you:
You may use this software with the understanding that the following terms apply to redistribution.
Have you ever read one of the licenses in a game you've purchased at the store? It basically amounts to "Don't redistribute and don't hold us liable." They could happily add a clause saying that "this license does not place any restrictions on how you use the software" and it would be pretty much the same.
An example of a license that restricts use is Sun's Java license. This license adds a clause stating that you may not use the software in life-threatening situations such as nuclear power plants.
One more thing. Redistribution is a form of use. Ergo, you must accept the license before you use the software.
Since you already figured it out, I won't hassle you.:-) Except for one point:
You need to license the instruction set in order to be able to implement it.
What is the GPL? It is a license. You need to license GPL code before you can use it. The main difference is that everyone is used to GPL software being easily accessable (i.e. Click and download). That's not actually a requirement of the GPL or Open Source. In fact, if the shit hit the fan, many OS developers may receive no compensation for damages due to a failure to force the user to accept the terms of the agreement before providing said service.
Have open-source cores been available to implement those specs been available for a LONG time?
For quite awhile, as I understand. The Leon chip is an example of this. Other areas such as Fujitsu's processors and set top devices have been based on Sparc.
I'm not saying that OpenCores is a bad thing. I'm just refuting this "we were here first" bullshit.
Excuse me? Why not? Take one hash, search for all rows with that hash. Take the first row and apply the password from it. Am I missing something here?
Side note: It is true that the password you use may not actually match the real password. That's beside the point. As long as the hashes match, the system will allow you in.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is exactly my point. We would have had the chance to shoot down the planes as soon as they started flying low in the city. The Air Force would already have been too late. Even if we hadn't figured it out with the first plane, we could have shot down the other three even if they were on final run. The terrorists deliberately tried to synchronize the attacks so that the window of opportunity would already have closed by the time we realized what they were doing.
You probably meant rogue, or maybe not...
:-)
Ermm... Yeah. Minor typo.
Regardless, giving the power you described to the state would be a crime. If you still trust them, you deserve everything you get.
Here's the question that everyone needs to consider. Which is the lesser of two evils:
Giving the government the power to track and destroy any airborne object.
-OR-
Letting the government trample on rights and destroy peoples lives just to prevent airborne threats from being created in the first place.
I'd rather have the former myself. It's not like you're giving them something they don't already have. Mach 3 fighter jets deployable anywhere, tactical nukes, satellite guided cruise missiles, ICBMs that can land on your house, etc. What could they do that they can't do now?
And the satellite crackers/disgruntled NORAD workers could shoot down buildings!
Now explain to me how they can't do that now? (Hint: Missiles in silos)
Fighter jets are normally scrambled in less than 5 minutes the instant a commercial jet is off course
But that didn't happen in this case. A Star Wars system would have given us right up until the planes collided to actually shoot them down. That's 5 minutes that the Air Force can't give you. Yes, you probably would have injured quite a few people on the ground. It still would have been nowhere near the number of people injured in the collisions and subsequent collapsing of the towers.
While I realize that some of the Star Wars technology was Pie in The Sky stuff meant to scare the USSR, I really think we should complete it. Trying to stop missile launches or radioactive materials from getting into the hands of terrorists can't be done without stepping over people's rights. (Generally considered a BAD thing by the US Constitution.)
Now if we had particle lasers in the sky that could track consumer planes and shoot down threatening bogeys, we'd have a much better defense than hoping the pilot sees the weapon and executes a barrel roll (haha).
This would also allow us to shoot down friendlies that go rouge. (e.g. 9/11 plane attacks)
Designed for Microsoft Windows XP
The only software I've ever seen with that label has been from Microsoft. There's plenty of hardware with that label, but when it comes to software, Microsoft doesn't share. Besides that, there are no real standards to live up to. The Nintendo Seal of Quality wasn't just "It uses the newest APIs". It was a actual scoring of a product done by human beings. If the product failed to meet Nintendo's standards (for whatever reasons, some perhaps made up on the spot to handle the differences in the game) it would have to be fixed or the product couldn't ship. I don't see Microsoft preventing anyone from shipping anything.
Nintendo Seal of Quality
Same thing could be applied to software.
In other words, your mirror would become a slab of molten silicon?
Unfortunately the crew encountered an unexpected solar flare and was doused with radiation.
I believe that's why every Sci-Fi book in existence refers to a small closet lined with lead that the astronauts huddle into in the case of solar flares. That way you can protect against normal radiation levels easily, and wait out emergency conditions without adding a significant amount of weight.
BTW, I read Red Mars. Let's just say that I was not impressed. I just don't see the people we send up there degrading into nudist, eco-terrorists. Sure, you may get those eventually (uh-huh, right) but most certainly not with your first colony!
Also, this could be waste water.
Except for the fact that you want to reuse that water. Closed systems like space ships need water purifiers and dehydrators to reprocess wastes excreted by the human body. Otherwise, you'd never be able to carry enough water for the trip. Similar thing with Oxygen. The CO2 must be reprocessed so that the inhabitants can breath.
Also, you wouldn't want to store your drinking water there, as some radiation can hang around in the water and become dangerous to the crew.
You're right. *phew* I'm confusing Gamma radiation with neutron emissions. However, our sun is a giant fission/fusion reactor. Shouldn't there be some neutron emissions? And what about neutrino radiation? Can that be managed via EM fields?
Even if this was TV, the deflector is the wrong tool for the job. The deflector sweeps particles out of the direct line of travel to prevent major accidents. That's very different from the shielding they obviously employ against radiation. If they didn't use some form of shielding, they would happily roast from their own engines! Most likely, they use some sort of EM field (built into the SIF maybe?) that pushes radiation around and away from the ship.
Now for the crux of the problem. Wouldn't an EM field only protect against some types of radiation? Both Alpha and Beta rays consist of charged particles that can be redirected via electromagnetic means. However, Gamma radiation consists of nuetrons. Nuetrons are inert and won't react to an EM field. (Or will they?) As a result, a significant amount of mass would still be needed as shielding.
Water is one of the best radiation protectors. By filling the double hull with water (and compartmentalizing against breaches) you could effectively shield an entire crew. Some form of EM "bubble" technology would also work, but it would be much more difficult to implement.
Oh, and they should use nuclear engines like NERVA or Orion. That way the extra weight of the water is less important, not to mention that the craft may be able to reserve enough fuel for emergency maneuvers.
Alright. I've cooled down. Let me take another whack at reducing the confusion over the GPL license. Here's the paragraph in question:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
In all reality, nothing but the GPL gives the user ANY rights to the software. Copyright law would normally forbid the user the software in absence of an agreement to transfer a copy. What this paragraph is implying is that you won't be prosecuted for using the software (especially since it would be difficult to prove that someone didn't acccept the terms of which there are none), but you could be prosectuted for violating the terms of redistribution.
Violation of the terms of redistribution results in one of two charges:
1. The user agreed to the license and violated it. The user can now be taken to court so that a judge may force compensation.
2. The user did not agree to the license and is illegally pirating software to which they have no title or license.
There you have it. Contract law as it relates to the GPL, in a nutshell.
ARRRGGGGHHH!!!!
Just because you can't run afoul of it through normal use doesn't mean you don't have to agree to it upfront. Does anyone around here even take ten minutes to study contract law before shooting their mouths off?! I stated the facts of contract law over and over and over in my replies. WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND? Two parties enter in an agreement. As long as the agreement is followed, there's no problem. This is SEPARATE FROM WHAT THE AGREEMENT ALLOWS OR DISALLOWS. Just because the agreement only bothers to cover redistribution DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THE AGREEMENT. IF THE AGREEMENT IS NOT MADE, BUT THE PRODUCT IS STILL PROVIDED, THEN THE RECEIVER HAS FULL RIGHTS TO THE PRODUCT.
Period. End of story. Got a problem with it? Talk to a lawyer. Hopefully he'll use a 2x4 to beat some sense into your head.
Let me repeat myself. The GPL is a license that defines how you may use the software. The only rights it mitigates are ones dealing with redistribution. If you fail to attach a contract to the relationship at the time of providing a product or service, you may lose your right to enforce the terms of your contract.
As an example, let's say that I (as the author/owner) give you a copy of a movie on DVD. Once I have given it to you, you might go out and resell it (possibly for a profit). Now that you have it, I can't go back and state that you can't resell it. If I wanted to attach that condition, I should have done so before giving you the movie. This holds true because the transfer of the movie was considered an agreement between two parties. I agreed to give you the movie and allow you to use it, subject to copyright laws. You or I may modify that agreement, but only at the time of the agreement. If I want to modify the agreement at a later date, I must reserve that right at the time of the transaction.
Attempting to modify an agreement after it has been made is considered prejudical to the other party. The one exception is if both parties mutally agree to a modification of their agreement. This modification is actually a new agreement that changes or invalidates the original agreement.
Now a contract (of which a license is a sub-type) is simply a written agreement. This is preferred over a verbal agreement (which is still legally binding, btw) because it offers proof that an agreement was made, and allows a dispute to be solved without bringing into question whether the agreement was ever transacted. If you watch many of these small claims shows (People's Court, Judge Judy, etc.) you'll note that many of the arguments stem from lack of proof of an agreement. Thus the judge is forced to divine if an agreement ever took place, and if it did, what points do both sides admit to?
In summary, the idea that you don't have to agree to the GPL because you are not redistributing is rediculous. If such were the case, the GPL would immediately become invalid. You are confusing the fact that the GPL does not mitigate your normal usage of software with the fact that the GPL does mitigate your redistribution of software. These two are not mutally exclusive.
If by "use" you mean "run", you are absolutely incorrect. You are only required to accept the GPL if you want to distribute the software.
Um... no. If you don't agree to licensing terms, then you aren't bound by them. The GPL terms are a *condition of giving you the software*. If a judge found out that someone didn't agree to the terms of a license, and you told people it was okay to use it anyway, he'd laugh you out of the court!
To quote from the GPL (which you should read): "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted..."
And to interpret it for you:
You may use this software with the understanding that the following terms apply to redistribution.
Have you ever read one of the licenses in a game you've purchased at the store? It basically amounts to "Don't redistribute and don't hold us liable." They could happily add a clause saying that "this license does not place any restrictions on how you use the software" and it would be pretty much the same.
An example of a license that restricts use is Sun's Java license. This license adds a clause stating that you may not use the software in life-threatening situations such as nuclear power plants.
One more thing. Redistribution is a form of use. Ergo, you must accept the license before you use the software.
Since you already figured it out, I won't hassle you. :-) Except for one point:
:-)
You need to license the instruction set in order to be able to implement it.
What is the GPL? It is a license. You need to license GPL code before you can use it. The main difference is that everyone is used to GPL software being easily accessable (i.e. Click and download). That's not actually a requirement of the GPL or Open Source. In fact, if the shit hit the fan, many OS developers may receive no compensation for damages due to a failure to force the user to accept the terms of the agreement before providing said service.
Just something to think about.
No worries. I'm karma capped anyway. :-)
Have open-source cores been available to implement those specs been available for a LONG time?
For quite awhile, as I understand. The Leon chip is an example of this. Other areas such as Fujitsu's processors and set top devices have been based on Sparc.
I'm not saying that OpenCores is a bad thing. I'm just refuting this "we were here first" bullshit.
So what's Sparc V? Swiss Cheese? Sparc specs have been available for a LONG time.
However, 12 bits ain't what it used to be. With only 4096 salts available, pre-encrypted dictionaries are now becoming feasible.
:-)
You said it, not me. I'm not wrong, just not very detailed.
It will still not be 1 to 1.
Excuse me? Why not? Take one hash, search for all rows with that hash. Take the first row and apply the password from it. Am I missing something here?
Side note: It is true that the password you use may not actually match the real password. That's beside the point. As long as the hashes match, the system will allow you in.
Ouch, that does indeed work. Glad my Mac has no remote services installed...
That's separate from suck-add
:-)
LOL! Seems I've developed a new swearing lingo.