Hmm. Need 2/3rds majority. You say 70 people voted against? Then you need 140 or more to vote for. Got 136? Oh well, looks like it fails. No need to worry about what 2/3rds of 206 is. Just simply see if at least twice as many people voted for the issue compared to the number who voted against.
Then I suggest you look again at the video. What I was seeing was random placement of items on the source conveyor belt and quite orderly placement on the destination conveyor belt.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Oh? Let's see you draw a triangle on a globe. Place 1 vertex at the north pole. Draw a line from there to the equator. Now go back to the north pole and draw another line starting there at 90 degrees from the 1st line. Draw that line also to the equator. Finally, connect the 2 endpoints sitting on the equator together with a 3rd line.
Now measure the angles at each vertex of the triangle you just drew. Add up the angles and tell me what their sum is.
270 you say? How about that. Seems that not all triangles add up to 180..... Now go away troll.
I actually took a look at the URL you posted and it was the most information free entry I have ever seen on wikipedia. Why you and it seems everyone else who's claiming that DRM can be done via open source is that there is NOTHING that prevents the code from being modified to save the unencrypted output to a different destination. Only if the unencrypted content is never accessible the open source can it be protected. It doesn't matter where the key is stored, or how the content is decrypted. The only thing that matters is that if an open source program touches the unencrypted content, then said content is no longer protected.
Actually, the detectable set of flaws doesn't have to be globally unique. Say you have a population of 1 million RFIDs that you consider suitable for this higher level of authentication. And assume that you have a set of 1000 detectable "fingerprints" of potential flaws. That means that if someone were to attempt to duplicate one of the protected RFIDs, they would only have a 1 in a thousand chance of doing so successfully.
What they're measuring is the minimum power level that a given RFID will respond to. This opens up two major issues.
1. A database of the response curves is needed in order to uniquely identify the RFID chip in question. 2. Since the power received follows the inverse square law, one of the major advantages of an RFID chip is negated. Namely the ability to scan for it's presence without having to have exact location. They need to precisely control the distance from the RFID chip and the reader in order for that technology to work. And if they need that level of control, why not use a contact based technology?
I suspect that it's speed is dependent upon the amount of work the climber needs to perform. Interestingly enough, the required work decreases as the climber gains altitude. After all, the gravitational pull gets reduced with the greater distance from earth due to the inverse square law. And, yes, I'm aware that the efficiently of the power transmission also goes down with the inverse square law, but I'll assume they step up the power as required to keep the amount of power the climber gets as close to the maximum power the climber can handle.
So starting at sea level, the climber is running at 5 M/s. A rather modest rate. By the time it's climbed to 2640 km, it's speed is up to 10 M/s. At 6380 km, it climbing at 20 M/s. The 60 M/s rate is reached at about 15700 km. I estimate that a climber capable of 5 M/s at sea level due to its increasing speed as the amount of work it's doing per meter decreases, can reach geostational altitude in about 300 hours. There's quite a bit of slop in this estimate since I didn't account for orbital velocity which would tend to decrease the amount of work required (for example, my spreadsheet has the climbing fighting a downward acceleration of 0.22 M/s at geostationary altitide when in reality it would be fighting nothing. Also I haven't bothered to take into consideration deceleration which would obviously be required since you wouldn't want your payload to go zipping by in excess of 218 M/s as it passes geostationary and heads on out to deep space.
And did you not actually read the article? That issue was addressed within it.
In recent tests, the research team found that laser-labeled Ruby Red grapefruits showed no increase in decay or water loss compared to their sticker-labeled counterparts. The grapefruit also remained free of pathogens-meaning the laser-etching doesn't provide a new entry point for germs.
But then again, this is slashdot so, who am I to expect people to actually read the article prior to commenting on it?
And if they have access to the actual ballots, who you voted for. A non-transparent system with a way to match voters with their votes that has been "verified to be secure by the brightest minds at MIT". Every dictators wet dream.
So? Seems to me that the proper countermeasure if you want to verify your vote and keep someone who has access to your ballot from determining who your voted for is quite simple:
Go home. Select N random serial numbers. I am assuming the ballot serial numbers are not random, but well known. Add your ballot serial number to the list. Shuffle the list. Request the read out from all the serial numbers you have. And N doesn't have to be very large. I'm thinking somewhere between 10 and 20 would work.
If you take a look at the electrical code, and at the 15 amp outlets you're talking about you'll notice two things.
1. That 15 amp outlet is rated for 20 amps pass thru current. 2. The electrical code permits a 20 amp circuit to have multiple 15 amp outlets.
So if you want to see if the electrician did things correctly, check 1. Is the 20 amp circuit wired with 12 gauge copper wire or heavier? 2. Are there multiple 15 amp outlets on the circuit?
If both answers are "yes", he did things according to code.
You: I didn't drive with a cell phone. Cop: You did drive with a cell phone.
Judge: Even though you are both 'equal' members of society, I will choose to disbelieve you. Guilty.
You: Your honor, here is a copy of my phone bill for the time frame in which the ticket was written. Notice that there are no phone calls near the time in which the ticket was written.
But I have definite issues with the last paragraph of the article
Such a device could be used to harvest solar energy in places where the light is too diffuse for mirrors to concentrate it onto a solar cell. An optical black hole would suck it all in and direct it at a solar cell sitting at the core. "If that works, you will no longer require these huge parabolic mirrors to collect light," says Narimanov.
The article gives no indication that light passing near the device will get sucked into it, but only that all light hitting the device gets sucked into the center. So instead of requiring those huge parabolic mirrors, you'll instead require these huge cylindrical structures. Would still have a nice advantage in that no tracking or steering devices would be required since light hitting it from any side gets "sucked in", but it would still require a considerable amount of real estate to deploy assuming that they can both scale it down (to handle visible light) and scale it up (to make the amount of light absorbed represent a non-trivial amount of power).
Yes, without authentication, you can be subjected to a man in the middle attack.
However, that attack is an active one.
Without encryption, you can be subjected to a simple passive sniffing attack. Put a hub somewhere in the connection and sniff every packet that goes by. No need for an active attack. No need to establish two encrypted sessions (one to victim, one to victims intended destination). No need to interpret and alter packets going between the victim and destination.
Does encryption all by itself prevent all attacks? No it does not. Does it provide more protection than sending in the clear? Yes it does.
... saying that Chernobyl only happened because of stupidity doesn't make the problem go away. In fact, if Chernobyl failed because of some technical flaw that would actually be easier to fix. Human stupidity isn't. If nuclear plants start proliferating in third world countries, the chance of another Chernobyl becomes likely.
Then I guess you should rejoice. Chernobyl failed due to a technical flaw that allowed human stupidity to cause the melt down. The flaw was fundemental to Chernobyl's design. Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor. In a nutshell, this meant that the reaction would continue at full speed even with a loss of cooling. Due to this hazard, that design was banned in the West long before Chernobyl happened. The reactors used in the western world were typically light water reactors. With these reactors, a loss of cooling water in the core would cause the primary reaction to slow down and stop. There would still be secondary reactions caused by the further decay of isotopes created by the primary reaction. And these secondary reactions could generate enough heat to damage the core, but not nearly to the extent that happened in Chernobyl.
Finally, designs have gotten simplier and better since then.
However, I see some problems with a nuclear battery for a car.
Its lifespan isn't dependent upon how much power it's supplying. A million times the power density doesn't mean that the car can travel a million times as far on the battery as a single charge of a conventional battery. So for applications with extreme changes in power requirements, you're going to have a lot of wasted potential energy. Those isotopes are decaying regardless of your immediate need for power.
Because of this, I'd say that nuclear batteries are more suited towards those applications where you have a relatively steady power requirement. Things like pacemakers are ideal in that you want a continous and reliable source of long term power.
Yep. And almost every car on road now has a device on it to cause a chemical reaction of partially burned fuel with air. The original correct name for these devices is catalytic reactor. But the word "reactor" brings up scary thoughts about nuclear reactors. So the marketroids named these devices "catalytic converters"
Actually, they stopped using the high mast for mooring after the incident in 1927 with the Los Angeles and went to low towers. Their approach was to keep the airship at positive buoyancy and tether it to the ground to make the system as a whole negative buoyancy (e.g. The attachment at the nose keeps that from going up and a trailer at the tail keeps that in place. The airship as a whole is allowed to pivot in a circle around the low tower).
The incident in 1927 with the Los Angeles was a remarkable fluke where a gust of wind almost exactly 180 degrees from the current wind lifted the tail of the airship up to almost vertical, it then pivoted on its nose and went back to horizontal. Minimal damage was done, but that pretty much spelled the end for the high mast for mooring.
have to wonder about the accurary of the following claim:
Pliant also claims there is no limit to the number of writes that can be performed to the drive and that it will work without slowdown for at least five years.
I have no problems with their claimed speed since frankly, if you run multiple smaller internal unit in parallel, you can pretty much get any speed you desire. But it's my understanding that the wearing out of the storage cells is a physical problem and in order for their claim to hold true, they've had to have done one of two things.
1. Made a fundemental break thru on SSD storage that doesn't have the wear problem. 2. Have enough storage and wear leveling to last for 5 years at maximum rated speed.
Yes, 99% of an Osprey's diet is fish. However, they have been known to kill and eat other birds as well. But attempting to explain a joke is most likely wasted effort.
I doubt it. But assuming current technology, the 18 wheeler wins hands down easily. I'll use Seagate Barracuda 1TB drive as my baseline. Looking at it's size and weight, it turns out that the weight is the main limiting factor. Without special permits, a semi-tractor trailer is limited to 80,000 lbs gross weight. Assuming 50,000 lbs is actually usable for cargo, then at 1.371 lbs per drive, the truck can carry 36,500 drives. The volume that many drives is far less than the volume of a 28 ft trailer. So we're talking a single truck load of drives is about 36.5 petabytes.
Now how long would that take to transmit at T1 speeds? 1544000 bits per second = 193,000 bytes per second (yes, I'm ignoring any framing or overhead. Shame on me). Doing the math, I get a transmission time of almost 5993 years.
With that amount of time, I'll assume the truck can travel cross country in 3 days. But to be generous, I'll give it a week. I'll assume assume the handling time for the hard drives is the same at both ends. So in order for the truck to be faster, I have to handle 36,500 hard drives in a total time of less than 2996 years at each end. So I have a budgeted time of only 29.98 days per hard drive at each end.
Somehow, I suspect it would take a lot less time than that.......
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. Need 2/3rds majority. You say 70 people voted against? Then you need 140 or more to vote for. Got 136? Oh well, looks like it fails. No need to worry about what 2/3rds of 206 is. Just simply see if at least twice as many people voted for the issue compared to the number who voted against.
Oh? No sorting or filtering?
Then I suggest you look again at the video. What I was seeing was random placement of items on the source conveyor belt and quite orderly placement on the destination conveyor belt.
Oh? Let's see you draw a triangle on a globe. Place 1 vertex at the north pole. Draw a line from there to the equator. Now go back to the north pole and draw another line starting there at 90 degrees from the 1st line. Draw that line also to the equator. Finally, connect the 2 endpoints sitting on the equator together with a 3rd line.
Now measure the angles at each vertex of the triangle you just drew. Add up the angles and tell me what their sum is.
270 you say? How about that. Seems that not all triangles add up to 180.....
Now go away troll.
I actually took a look at the URL you posted and it was the most information free entry I have ever seen on wikipedia. Why you and it seems everyone else who's claiming that DRM can be done via open source is that there is NOTHING that prevents the code from being modified to save the unencrypted output to a different destination. Only if the unencrypted content is never accessible the open source can it be protected. It doesn't matter where the key is stored, or how the content is decrypted. The only thing that matters is that if an open source program touches the unencrypted content, then said content is no longer protected.
Actually, the detectable set of flaws doesn't have to be globally unique.
Say you have a population of 1 million RFIDs that you consider suitable for this higher level of authentication. And assume that you have a set of 1000 detectable "fingerprints" of potential flaws.
That means that if someone were to attempt to duplicate one of the protected RFIDs, they would only have a 1 in a thousand chance of doing so successfully.
given what the article says.
What they're measuring is the minimum power level that a given RFID will respond to. This opens up two major issues.
1. A database of the response curves is needed in order to uniquely identify the RFID chip in question.
2. Since the power received follows the inverse square law, one of the major advantages of an RFID chip is negated. Namely the ability to scan for it's presence without having to have exact location. They need to precisely control the distance from the RFID chip and the reader in order for that technology to work. And if they need that level of control, why not use a contact based technology?
Actually, the vehicle in front also benefits from the drafting. Not to the same degree as the trailing vehicles, but it gets a significant benefit none the less. See http://www.livescience.com/technology/070215_nascar_aero.html for details.
I suspect that it's speed is dependent upon the amount of work the climber needs to perform.
Interestingly enough, the required work decreases as the climber gains altitude. After all, the gravitational pull gets reduced with the greater distance from earth due to the inverse square law. And, yes, I'm aware that the efficiently of the power transmission also goes down with the inverse square law, but I'll assume they step up the power as required to keep the amount of power the climber gets as close to the maximum power the climber can handle.
So starting at sea level, the climber is running at 5 M/s. A rather modest rate.
By the time it's climbed to 2640 km, it's speed is up to 10 M/s.
At 6380 km, it climbing at 20 M/s.
The 60 M/s rate is reached at about 15700 km.
I estimate that a climber capable of 5 M/s at sea level due to its increasing speed as the amount of work it's doing per meter decreases, can reach geostational altitude in about 300 hours. There's quite a bit of slop in this estimate since I didn't account for orbital velocity which would tend to decrease the amount of work required (for example, my spreadsheet has the climbing fighting a downward acceleration of 0.22 M/s at geostationary altitide when in reality it would be fighting nothing. Also I haven't bothered to take into consideration deceleration which would obviously be required since you wouldn't want your payload to go zipping by in excess of 218 M/s as it passes geostationary and heads on out to deep space.
And did you not actually read the article? That issue was addressed within it.
But then again, this is slashdot so, who am I to expect people to actually read the article prior to commenting on it?
So? Seems to me that the proper countermeasure if you want to verify your vote and keep someone who has access to your ballot from determining who your voted for is quite simple:
Go home. Select N random serial numbers. I am assuming the ballot serial numbers are not random, but well known. Add your ballot serial number to the list. Shuffle the list. Request the read out from all the serial numbers you have. And N doesn't have to be very large. I'm thinking somewhere between 10 and 20 would work.
Nope. The electrician didn't fuck up.
If you take a look at the electrical code, and at the 15 amp outlets you're talking about you'll notice two things.
1. That 15 amp outlet is rated for 20 amps pass thru current.
2. The electrical code permits a 20 amp circuit to have multiple 15 amp outlets.
So if you want to see if the electrician did things correctly, check
1. Is the 20 amp circuit wired with 12 gauge copper wire or heavier?
2. Are there multiple 15 amp outlets on the circuit?
If both answers are "yes", he did things according to code.
You: Your honor, here is a copy of my phone bill for the time frame in which the ticket was written. Notice that there are no phone calls near the time in which the ticket was written.
But I have definite issues with the last paragraph of the article
The article gives no indication that light passing near the device will get sucked into it, but only that all light hitting the device gets sucked into the center. So instead of requiring those huge parabolic mirrors, you'll instead require these huge cylindrical structures. Would still have a nice advantage in that no tracking or steering devices would be required since light hitting it from any side gets "sucked in", but it would still require a considerable amount of real estate to deploy assuming that they can both scale it down (to handle visible light) and scale it up (to make the amount of light absorbed represent a non-trivial amount of power).
It's not that simple.
Yes, without authentication, you can be subjected to a man in the middle attack.
However, that attack is an active one.
Without encryption, you can be subjected to a simple passive sniffing attack. Put a hub somewhere in the connection and sniff every packet that goes by. No need for an active attack. No need to establish two encrypted sessions (one to victim, one to victims intended destination). No need to interpret and alter packets going between the victim and destination.
Does encryption all by itself prevent all attacks? No it does not. Does it provide more protection than sending in the clear? Yes it does.
Then I guess you should rejoice. Chernobyl failed due to a technical flaw that allowed human stupidity to cause the melt down. The flaw was fundemental to Chernobyl's design. Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor. In a nutshell, this meant that the reaction would continue at full speed even with a loss of cooling. Due to this hazard, that design was banned in the West long before Chernobyl happened. The reactors used in the western world were typically light water reactors. With these reactors, a loss of cooling water in the core would cause the primary reaction to slow down and stop. There would still be secondary reactions caused by the further decay of isotopes created by the primary reaction. And these secondary reactions could generate enough heat to damage the core, but not nearly to the extent that happened in Chernobyl.
Finally, designs have gotten simplier and better since then.
And why would you even consider recharging it?
However, I see some problems with a nuclear battery for a car.
Its lifespan isn't dependent upon how much power it's supplying. A million times the power density doesn't mean that the car can travel a million times as far on the battery as a single charge of a conventional battery. So for applications with extreme changes in power requirements, you're going to have a lot of wasted potential energy. Those isotopes are decaying regardless of your immediate need for power.
Because of this, I'd say that nuclear batteries are more suited towards those applications where you have a relatively steady power requirement. Things like pacemakers are ideal in that you want a continous and reliable source of long term power.
Yep. And almost every car on road now has a device on it to cause a chemical reaction of partially burned fuel with air. The original correct name for these devices is catalytic reactor. But the word "reactor" brings up scary thoughts about nuclear reactors. So the marketroids named these devices "catalytic converters"
Actually, they stopped using the high mast for mooring after the incident in 1927 with the Los Angeles and went to low towers. Their approach was to keep the airship at positive buoyancy and tether it to the ground to make the system as a whole negative buoyancy (e.g. The attachment at the nose keeps that from going up and a trailer at the tail keeps that in place. The airship as a whole is allowed to pivot in a circle around the low tower).
The incident in 1927 with the Los Angeles was a remarkable fluke where a gust of wind almost exactly 180 degrees from the current wind lifted the tail of the airship up to almost vertical, it then pivoted on its nose and went back to horizontal. Minimal damage was done, but that pretty much spelled the end for the high mast for mooring.
have to wonder about the accurary of the following claim:
I have no problems with their claimed speed since frankly, if you run multiple smaller internal unit in parallel, you can pretty much get any speed you desire. But it's my understanding that the wearing out of the storage cells is a physical problem and in order for their claim to hold true, they've had to have done one of two things.
1. Made a fundemental break thru on SSD storage that doesn't have the wear problem.
2. Have enough storage and wear leveling to last for 5 years at maximum rated speed.
this article was either posted 161 days too late, or 204 days too early. Not certain which.
Odd.....
I don't find you complaining about http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/09/08/29/1934251/Pigeon-Protocol-Finds-a-Practical-Purpose?art_pos=3
Notice the last link in the article.
Yes, 99% of an Osprey's diet is fish. However, they have been known to kill and eat other birds as well. But attempting to explain a joke is most likely wasted effort.
I doubt it. But assuming current technology, the 18 wheeler wins hands down easily. I'll use Seagate Barracuda 1TB drive as my baseline. Looking at it's size and weight, it turns out that the weight is the main limiting factor. Without special permits, a semi-tractor trailer is limited to 80,000 lbs gross weight. Assuming 50,000 lbs is actually usable for cargo, then at 1.371 lbs per drive, the truck can carry 36,500 drives. The volume that many drives is far less than the volume of a 28 ft trailer. So we're talking a single truck load of drives is about 36.5 petabytes.
Now how long would that take to transmit at T1 speeds? 1544000 bits per second = 193,000 bytes per second (yes, I'm ignoring any framing or overhead. Shame on me). Doing the math, I get a transmission time of almost 5993 years.
With that amount of time, I'll assume the truck can travel cross country in 3 days. But to be generous, I'll give it a week. I'll assume assume the handling time for the hard drives is the same at both ends. So in order for the truck to be faster, I have to handle 36,500 hard drives in a total time of less than 2996 years at each end. So I have a budgeted time of only 29.98 days per hard drive at each end.
Somehow, I suspect it would take a lot less time than that.......
the order for a large shipment of Ospreys, peregrines, and other raptors to South Africa.......
Too bad I don't have any mod points. For a totally off comment and asshole statement like yours, a negative moderation is most definitely called for.
Sigh. So you're claiming cause happens *after* effect?
Answer a couple of questions.
1. What is the major green house gas in the atmosphere?
2. What percentage of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is due to human influences.
Hint: If you answer question 1 with Carbon Dioxide, you shouldn't get involved with this debate.