We couldn't possibly have been targeting Japan with small, high-yield weapons for practical reasons like: A) It's a long way from here, so it's expensive to move things B) We didn't have any decent, nearby staging areas, so it's hard to launch bombers C) We didn't have nearly as much European support in the Pacific D) We didn't know when the bomb would be done, and it was clear for a long time that victory in Europe was coming with or without the bomb
I'm not saying that racism wasn't possibly a factor, but there were all sorts of perfectly valid, non-race-related reasons that Japan would be the first target.
Tapping a phone line, stealing a password, and sniffing packets do not "take possession" of the information, they duplicate the information -- the sender still has the information as they did originally.
Now if the information is large -- say a movie -- and you steal the physical manifestation of that information -- say a DVD -- the original possessor may not have the ability to accurately re-transcribe the information. But by stealing the DVD you don't erase their memory of the movie, just their ability to display it using a DVD player.
If a milliwatt cellphone has the (potential) ability to cause DNA recombination errors
It doesn't. If it did, you would have been killed by the local broadcast media stations years ago. Or, your know, the sun -- that giant ball throwing gigawatts of wide-spectrum EM radiation at us all day, every day.
Yes, it does. It supports arbitrary record types, something that even your precious BIND does not (even though the RFC says it should). Grep for "generic record" in the tinydns-data documentation.
It doesn't support IPv6 queries without a patch (not that software last updated in 2001 reasonably could), but it most definitely supports AAAA and SRV records -- I'm currently using it to serve both.
/ Feel free to not like DJBDNS, just pick technically valid reasons
Just to be clear, it's not re-licensed; it has been released into the public domain, and no license is needed at all. DJBDNS and the like have similarly been released from copyright protection.
I care about keeping DNS requests private. I personal would prefer that my ISP can't tell where I'm browsing just by grabbing clear-text domain names out of DNS queries.
In particular think about things like HTTPS -- the data channel itself is secure from passive eavsdropping, but anyone can tell what domain I'm using. If there's only one domain at the destination IP that doesn't leak a lot of information, but if there are multiple domains at the same IP, or if the PTR record for the IP doesn't contain a useful domain, leaking the DNS query can reveal quite a bit of information.
Couldn't you just as easily say that playing an email character has positive moral effects by teaching the player to empathize with his virtual victims? Particularly in a setting like the one presented, where the character wants to stop doing bad things. Such a scenario could teach little Johnny that there are both external and moral consequences for his actions.
Culture, including video games, are supposed to teach us not just about happy things but also about terrible things; if you replaced "video games" with "classic opera" I doubt anyone would take you seriously if you suggested that the violence and "evil" characters are detrimental to society.
I don't know why you're assuming that the goal of the test was to show the system worked perfectly and could not be fooled. Doesn't it make sense to test the components -- you know, like a multi-sensor, multi-location tracking system, and the launch and guidance system of a kill vehicle -- even if the entire system is not yet functional?
I'm not saying this program is necessarily a good idea, but it seems unreasonable to assume that tests are only done on a final product, or that a failure to meet acceptance criteria means the test was a waste of money -- if it passed every test criteria on the first try wouldn't it just be a waste of money to test in the first place?
The third point is one that really cheeses of a lot of environmentalists. You hear a lot of awesome things in the news about how scientists have invented rice with extra vitamin A or tomatoes with longer shelf life. The truth is that there are really only two major types of changes which companies have fought to get onto the market -- crops that come with their own built-in Bt insecticide and crops that let you liberally sprinkle around the herbicide RoundUp. (A notable exception to this would be GM papaya engineered to resist the papaya ringspot virus which saved the Hawaiian conventional papaya industry while wiping out the organic industry there.)
Here's a surprise -- companies developing GM crops are fighting most for the ones with the largest profit margin.
The fact that commercially valuable GM crops are the first ones available in the market is hardly a surprise. But it's quite a leap to say that, just because there hasn't been a marketplace success of other GM crops means they won't ever be available.
I think you should be impressed that vitamin-A-enriched rice even exists given the low profit potential. The fact that it isn't readily available is related primarily to all the whining about how GM foods are terrible, not because no one is working on them.
Google only indexed published material that (except in the case of error) is intended to be publicly available. When turnitin stops indexing the unpublished material that students submitted in private as part of their eduction you can have your analogy back.
Only if you have it monitor unidirectional traffic -- it's pretty hard to spoof TCP because the connection doesn't open until you send packets in both directions. A TCP spoofer needs to be able to see and inject packets that are being routed along legitimate paths, which essentially means they need to be on the local network at your end or the local network of the legitimate remote host.
And if someone is on your local network attacking you an IP-based block won't work not matter what you do.
It's okay for cigarette companies to advertise to little kids with fake lolly type cigarettes? I mean, it's their choice after all.
It's not their choice. We've decided that children can't consent to all sorts of things (contracts, sex, etc.), and that we need to take legal action to protect them. That's the basis of many of the rulings against advertising to children.
Why should something deadly be OK just because it helps people feel good?
We let people do many things that may be deadly but make them feel good. Like traveling cross-country to see their relatives. Or skiing. Or swimming. Or eating less-than-healthful diets. Or using a fireplace not intended as a primary heating device.
All of the examples above are totally unnecessary from a practical standpoint -- people do them just because it feels good, not because they must to survive, or even to hold jobs/participate in society -- and all those examples are potentially deadly.
By your logic if I support banning alcohol when I should also support banning unnecessary travel and any other leisure activities with potential health risks. That doesn't seem like a great plan to me -- I'd like to think that adults should be allowed pretty broad latitude in what sorts of personal risks they're willing to take -- but I guess you're welcome to your opinion. Unless holding or expressing a certain opinion might lead to bodily harm, and then I suppose you shouldn't be entitled to that either.
I could argue that the only function of skiing is bodily harm. You're obviously discounting the "fun" and "social" aspects of alcohol and cigarettes, so it's only fair to do the same for skiing. And at that point* skiing just looks like an outdoor activity designed to sometimes kill or injure people.
* I am excluding the small number of people that using skiing for transportation, as I expect he's excluded the small number of people that use driving exclusively for non-transportation purposes.
Buddy, if *you* don't want to fly just *pretend* the trip costs $1000 out-of-pocket. But the rest of us might want to fly, and probably would not appreciate giving extra money to the government just because you think some of the reasons we choose to fly aren't societally valuable.
What you're suggesting is akin to taxing food to discourage obesity -- sure, you'd make overeating more expensive, which is good for society. But you'd also make sustenance-level consumption more expensive, which is quite likely to be much worse for society than whatever gain you'd get from reduced overeating.
If you'd like to discourage tourism-related travel you should tax tourism, not travel. Or, you know, let places with tourism decided for themselves how many resources they'd like to dedicate to air travel and charge landing fees accordingly, intervening only when there's a strong, clear conflict of interest with the rest of society.
I agree that this is a bad idea, but the information A) is not personally identifiable -- the specificity is at best an IP address and B) isn't being provided to Apple, and therefore Apple isn't providing it to anyone.
If you wanted to argue with B) I think you'd have to make MS liable for every virus that uses the built-in TCP/IP and vCard libraries to query your address book and send off your personal information -- after all, the virus was using both libraries as designed and provided by MS.
No, you shouldn't use your peripheral vision to see more detail in any situation. The data density from the center of your eye is significantly higher than at any other point. The intensity sensitivity of your eye is greater outside the center -- you are able to detect smaller amounts of light -- but with significantly less detail.
So if you're goal is "detect dim objects" then peripheral vision is the way to go. But if your goal in "increased detail" you should stick with the center of your eye and just buy a telescope big enough so you can see the dim objects directly.
And on a related note, you do have a small blind spot at the center of your eye where the optic nerve is attached, so in non-binocular, fixed-gaze viewing (like you would do with a telescope) it is important to avoid this particular spot. But your blind spot is pretty small, so you can still use the high-density portions of your eye near the center without a problem.
Thank you for reminding us that MS invented e-mail, LDAP, and centralized administration. Because those of us with non-MS systems have no capability to copy e-mail, centralize contacts, or enforce administrative policies on end users.
/ MS shills -- pretending that MS invented UNIX concepts since they first sold Windows 2000.
// Seriously, bash Apple if you want, but a good troll would at least put Apple bashing and MS praising in separate posts
A) It's said that it makes you look bad. The 5th amendment is not a way to hide criminal activity, it's a fundamental way to protect freedom. You could help by not telling people that taking the 5th is a bad idea or indicates that you're hiding something.
B) "Looking bad" is generally considered a positive outcome vis-a-vis serving time in prison.
But that's not really true either -- the threat of violence can keep all 100 people in line. While it's true that working collectively they could overwhelm the man with the gun, anyone who tried -- particularly the first few -- have a good chance of getting shot. So unless there are several people willing to sacrifice themselves for the group, or are otherwise not deterred by the personal chance of being shot the threat of violence is sufficient, and the number of bullets (or even their existence at all) is immaterial.
At 300 watts you'd need a fair amount of solar panels. And even then you'd only be able to run it during the day -- if you wanted to run it 24/7 you'd need something more like 1+ kW and a battery system. And you'd still be hoping for enough rain to drink rainwater any day it wasn't sunny.
Slashdot Mirror
We couldn't possibly have been targeting Japan with small, high-yield weapons for practical reasons like:
A) It's a long way from here, so it's expensive to move things
B) We didn't have any decent, nearby staging areas, so it's hard to launch bombers
C) We didn't have nearly as much European support in the Pacific
D) We didn't know when the bomb would be done, and it was clear for a long time that victory in Europe was coming with or without the bomb
I'm not saying that racism wasn't possibly a factor, but there were all sorts of perfectly valid, non-race-related reasons that Japan would be the first target.
Tapping a phone line, stealing a password, and sniffing packets do not "take possession" of the information, they duplicate the information -- the sender still has the information as they did originally.
Now if the information is large -- say a movie -- and you steal the physical manifestation of that information -- say a DVD -- the original possessor may not have the ability to accurately re-transcribe the information. But by stealing the DVD you don't erase their memory of the movie, just their ability to display it using a DVD player.
If a milliwatt cellphone has the (potential) ability to cause DNA recombination errors
It doesn't. If it did, you would have been killed by the local broadcast media stations years ago. Or, your know, the sun -- that giant ball throwing gigawatts of wide-spectrum EM radiation at us all day, every day.
Yes, it does. It supports arbitrary record types, something that even your precious BIND does not (even though the RFC says it should). Grep for "generic record" in the tinydns-data documentation.
It doesn't support IPv6 queries without a patch (not that software last updated in 2001 reasonably could), but it most definitely supports AAAA and SRV records -- I'm currently using it to serve both.
/ Feel free to not like DJBDNS, just pick technically valid reasons
Just to be clear, it's not re-licensed; it has been released into the public domain, and no license is needed at all. DJBDNS and the like have similarly been released from copyright protection.
I care about keeping DNS requests private. I personal would prefer that my ISP can't tell where I'm browsing just by grabbing clear-text domain names out of DNS queries.
In particular think about things like HTTPS -- the data channel itself is secure from passive eavsdropping, but anyone can tell what domain I'm using. If there's only one domain at the destination IP that doesn't leak a lot of information, but if there are multiple domains at the same IP, or if the PTR record for the IP doesn't contain a useful domain, leaking the DNS query can reveal quite a bit of information.
Couldn't you just as easily say that playing an email character has positive moral effects by teaching the player to empathize with his virtual victims? Particularly in a setting like the one presented, where the character wants to stop doing bad things. Such a scenario could teach little Johnny that there are both external and moral consequences for his actions.
Culture, including video games, are supposed to teach us not just about happy things but also about terrible things; if you replaced "video games" with "classic opera" I doubt anyone would take you seriously if you suggested that the violence and "evil" characters are detrimental to society.
I don't know why you're assuming that the goal of the test was to show the system worked perfectly and could not be fooled. Doesn't it make sense to test the components -- you know, like a multi-sensor, multi-location tracking system, and the launch and guidance system of a kill vehicle -- even if the entire system is not yet functional?
I'm not saying this program is necessarily a good idea, but it seems unreasonable to assume that tests are only done on a final product, or that a failure to meet acceptance criteria means the test was a waste of money -- if it passed every test criteria on the first try wouldn't it just be a waste of money to test in the first place?
The third point is one that really cheeses of a lot of environmentalists. You hear a lot of awesome things in the news about how scientists have invented rice with extra vitamin A or tomatoes with longer shelf life. The truth is that there are really only two major types of changes which companies have fought to get onto the market -- crops that come with their own built-in Bt insecticide and crops that let you liberally sprinkle around the herbicide RoundUp. (A notable exception to this would be GM papaya engineered to resist the papaya ringspot virus which saved the Hawaiian conventional papaya industry while wiping out the organic industry there.)
Here's a surprise -- companies developing GM crops are fighting most for the ones with the largest profit margin.
The fact that commercially valuable GM crops are the first ones available in the market is hardly a surprise. But it's quite a leap to say that, just because there hasn't been a marketplace success of other GM crops means they won't ever be available.
I think you should be impressed that vitamin-A-enriched rice even exists given the low profit potential. The fact that it isn't readily available is related primarily to all the whining about how GM foods are terrible, not because no one is working on them.
Google only indexed published material that (except in the case of error) is intended to be publicly available. When turnitin stops indexing the unpublished material that students submitted in private as part of their eduction you can have your analogy back.
Only if you have it monitor unidirectional traffic -- it's pretty hard to spoof TCP because the connection doesn't open until you send packets in both directions. A TCP spoofer needs to be able to see and inject packets that are being routed along legitimate paths, which essentially means they need to be on the local network at your end or the local network of the legitimate remote host.
And if someone is on your local network attacking you an IP-based block won't work not matter what you do.
It's okay for cigarette companies to advertise to little kids with fake lolly type cigarettes? I mean, it's their choice after all.
It's not their choice. We've decided that children can't consent to all sorts of things (contracts, sex, etc.), and that we need to take legal action to protect them. That's the basis of many of the rulings against advertising to children.
See "Attractive Nuisance":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine
You obviously don't drink. Or smoke. Many, many people consider both activities art forms unto themselves, and require no additional entertainment.
Except that "some chemicals" includes "ethyl alcohol". But hey, don't let science get in the way of your prohibitionist propaganda.
Why should something deadly be OK just because it helps people feel good?
We let people do many things that may be deadly but make them feel good. Like traveling cross-country to see their relatives. Or skiing. Or swimming. Or eating less-than-healthful diets. Or using a fireplace not intended as a primary heating device.
All of the examples above are totally unnecessary from a practical standpoint -- people do them just because it feels good, not because they must to survive, or even to hold jobs/participate in society -- and all those examples are potentially deadly.
By your logic if I support banning alcohol when I should also support banning unnecessary travel and any other leisure activities with potential health risks. That doesn't seem like a great plan to me -- I'd like to think that adults should be allowed pretty broad latitude in what sorts of personal risks they're willing to take -- but I guess you're welcome to your opinion. Unless holding or expressing a certain opinion might lead to bodily harm, and then I suppose you shouldn't be entitled to that either.
I could argue that the only function of skiing is bodily harm. You're obviously discounting the "fun" and "social" aspects of alcohol and cigarettes, so it's only fair to do the same for skiing. And at that point* skiing just looks like an outdoor activity designed to sometimes kill or injure people.
* I am excluding the small number of people that using skiing for transportation, as I expect he's excluded the small number of people that use driving exclusively for non-transportation purposes.
Buddy, if *you* don't want to fly just *pretend* the trip costs $1000 out-of-pocket. But the rest of us might want to fly, and probably would not appreciate giving extra money to the government just because you think some of the reasons we choose to fly aren't societally valuable.
What you're suggesting is akin to taxing food to discourage obesity -- sure, you'd make overeating more expensive, which is good for society. But you'd also make sustenance-level consumption more expensive, which is quite likely to be much worse for society than whatever gain you'd get from reduced overeating.
If you'd like to discourage tourism-related travel you should tax tourism, not travel. Or, you know, let places with tourism decided for themselves how many resources they'd like to dedicate to air travel and charge landing fees accordingly, intervening only when there's a strong, clear conflict of interest with the rest of society.
Exactly what part of liquid nitrogen do you think the explosive sniffers would alert on if it weren't in a closed system?
It's a one-time event, and therefore automation is almost certainly a waste of time.
I agree that this is a bad idea, but the information A) is not personally identifiable -- the specificity is at best an IP address and B) isn't being provided to Apple, and therefore Apple isn't providing it to anyone.
If you wanted to argue with B) I think you'd have to make MS liable for every virus that uses the built-in TCP/IP and vCard libraries to query your address book and send off your personal information -- after all, the virus was using both libraries as designed and provided by MS.
No, you shouldn't use your peripheral vision to see more detail in any situation. The data density from the center of your eye is significantly higher than at any other point. The intensity sensitivity of your eye is greater outside the center -- you are able to detect smaller amounts of light -- but with significantly less detail.
So if you're goal is "detect dim objects" then peripheral vision is the way to go. But if your goal in "increased detail" you should stick with the center of your eye and just buy a telescope big enough so you can see the dim objects directly.
And on a related note, you do have a small blind spot at the center of your eye where the optic nerve is attached, so in non-binocular, fixed-gaze viewing (like you would do with a telescope) it is important to avoid this particular spot. But your blind spot is pretty small, so you can still use the high-density portions of your eye near the center without a problem.
Thank you for reminding us that MS invented e-mail, LDAP, and centralized administration. Because those of us with non-MS systems have no capability to copy e-mail, centralize contacts, or enforce administrative policies on end users.
/ MS shills -- pretending that MS invented UNIX concepts since they first sold Windows 2000.
// Seriously, bash Apple if you want, but a good troll would at least put Apple bashing and MS praising in separate posts
A) It's said that it makes you look bad. The 5th amendment is not a way to hide criminal activity, it's a fundamental way to protect freedom. You could help by not telling people that taking the 5th is a bad idea or indicates that you're hiding something.
B) "Looking bad" is generally considered a positive outcome vis-a-vis serving time in prison.
You mean a number equal to the number of bullets.
But that's not really true either -- the threat of violence can keep all 100 people in line. While it's true that working collectively they could overwhelm the man with the gun, anyone who tried -- particularly the first few -- have a good chance of getting shot. So unless there are several people willing to sacrifice themselves for the group, or are otherwise not deterred by the personal chance of being shot the threat of violence is sufficient, and the number of bullets (or even their existence at all) is immaterial.
At 300 watts you'd need a fair amount of solar panels. And even then you'd only be able to run it during the day -- if you wanted to run it 24/7 you'd need something more like 1+ kW and a battery system. And you'd still be hoping for enough rain to drink rainwater any day it wasn't sunny.