slashdot discussed it at length a few years ago. The principles are well known, and the soviet military has been using 200+ mph supercavitating torpedos since the 1970s. The best article on the subject that I know of is from the May 2001 Scientific American
I'm surprised that it will take that long. Burt Rutan's team just did another drop test. They've already taken their air/spacecraft beyond mach, and I expect they will try leaving the atmosphere before the year is up...
Holy crap - screw Darth Vader - some of the bonus features are worth a kidney!!! LIke this for example.. "The Birth of the Lightsaber: Its unforgettable hum and scintillating glow are instantly recognizable around the world.
I'll buy you the DVD set if you'll give me one of your kidneys. Those things are worth some serious money on the black market organs market;-)
Of *course* you have to install patches. There is a bored 11 year old out there somewhere who thinks can prove he's "133t" by downloading a sploit off of packetstorm and owning your box.
It doesn't matter that he has no knowledge of how to code a similar sploit himself, or that he could not admin your university WAN. It doesn't matter that university cut-backs mean you don't have enough money for a test LAN to make sure the latest buggy patches won't break business critical software/services or bring your servers to their knees. All that matters is that he can go on IRC and tell everyone how "k-rad 133t" he is.
We have several people on slashdot who are professional coders and engineers who work for companies making automotive mod chips. Hopefully some of them will weigh in here....
You've probably been wishing for a large, You've probably been wishing for a large, armored, waterproof, 15-hour-battery-life, rubberized PDA, haven't you? , haven't you?
Nope, I'm waiting for the small You've probably been wishing for a large, armored, waterproof, 15-hour-battery-life, rubberized PDA...with lasers!
The client will be completely undetectable and unremovable by even the most skilled hacker.
I am *SO* glad this is an april fool's day joke.
Imagine how much fun blackhats would have with hostile OP servers: "I'll destroy all your computers if you don't wire money to this swiss bank account..."
Taking them anyway, regardless of whether or not I would hypothetically have paid for them, were I required to do so (that is, were theft not so easy,) is still theft, as far as law is concerned.
I agree entirely. My discussion was of flaws in the RIAA logic, and not a justification of violating copyright. My solution: support indie musicians who willingly allow live shows to be taped and distributed online.
even the fancy certifications were not enough to keep people employed after the dot bomb. I am letting my CISSP lapse because it didn't do me any good.
ANKOS is not a groundbreaking book, and it's conclusions (that all creation is fundamentally programmed into it) is specious. He is adamant that there is no God which created everything, yet he points to artificial order which could only be created by an intelligent designer.
It seems odd that you would expect a book with "science" in the title to promote Intelligent design/creationism. Intelligent design definitely is not a scientific theory. Something cannot become a "theory" unless it has scientific evidence backing it up. Ideas that are "theories" are ones that have stood the test of time even though others have tried to use science to prove them false. Another words, explanations that become "theories" are the ones that have survived a knock-down, drag-out competition between rival ideas.
"Intelligent design" doesn't make any predictions about the nature of the universe. Because it makes no predictions, it is not falsifiable. Things that are not falsifiable cannot be examined with science, and can never be tested with science.
Science books discuss science. "Intelligent design" is not science, and it cannot examined with science, so it doesn't belong in a science book.
That book is utter rubbish. There's nothing special about it at all. Read this entire page for more info.
Drosnin once said, "When my critics find a message about the assassination of a prime minister encrypted in Moby-Dick, I'll believe them." McKay promptly produced an ELS analysis of Moby-Dick predicting not only Indira Ghandi's assassination, but the assassinations of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, and Yitzhak Rabin, as well as the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Mathematician David Thomas did an ELS on Genesis and found the words "code" and "bogus" close together not once but 60 times. What are the odds of that happening? Thomas also did an ELS analysis on Drosnin's Bible Code II: The Countdown (2002) and found the message "The Bible Code is a silly, dumb, fake, false, evil, nasty, dismal fraud and snake-oil hoax."* Does this mean that God put in a code to reveal that there is no code?
If you read various refutations of Pascal's wager, they seem to rely on "disproofs" of God's existance (by which they mean of course disproof of various Christian concepts of God as "all-knowing" or "all-loving" or whatever) by proving the logical inconsistency of simultaneous expression of various characteristics of God, or arguing about the meaning of belief.
Those are certainly arguments that are used against pascal's wager, but they certainly are not the best argument.
As they say at atheistparents.org:
Pascal's wager proposes that one should believe in god because you get all of the rewards if you're right and none of the penalties if you're wrong. Of course, Pascal's wager is flawed, in that it does not tell you which god you are supposed to believe in -- Zeus, Mithras, Allah, Jesus Christ, Osiris, Jupiter, mother earth, mother goose, or any number of other possibilities.
Take that argument one step farther. Beliefnet.com lists 17 major types of beliefs (sidebar). Assume that eight of them say they are the only correct religion (I think it is actually higher than that) and that one of those religions is correct. If pascal's wager is accurate, there is an 87% chance that you will pick the wrong religion and die.
(Yes, I know I've ignored the probability of each religion being chosen...that's too complicated for my tastes. You get the point. Someone more movitaved than me can track down worldwide memberships and try to get better figures.)
....such as primordial goop turning into puddles of proteins
Yup, the origin of life is still a sticky question. However, "evolution" != "abiotic genesis of life". Evolution is a change in genetic compostion of a population, nothing more, nothing less.
Just put your mouse over the link word Savannah(sp?), and the bottom of your browser will show that the link goes to savannah.gnu.org. It is the box that got rooted. Figuring that out takes about.5 seconds.
Back in 2001, Microsoft's Steve Lipner said
that code
"Review is boring and time consuming, and it's hard,". They don't seem to understand that many people get a lot of satisfaction in doing that. Many people look for things to post to bugtraq because doing so is *fun* for them.
Steve Balmer's recent statement about vulnerability researchers - 'I wish those people just would be quiet' - is downright silly. They are the biggest company on the block right now, and there's always going to be someone who wants to make the big corporation look silly. Microsoft needs to wake up to the fact that there will *always* be someone who is a) bored, and b) wants to make them look bad.
This book is a collection of the stuff off his hard drives from right after his death. The title "Salmon of a Doubt" is from a beginning Adams had written for another novel.
(The novel-in-progress was originally supposed to be about Dirk Gentley, but that
might have changed if he had lived to finish it.)
That partial story is part of this book, but that's a very small portion near the back.
The bulk of Salmon of a Doubt is essays , speeches and interviews on a variety of topics. This is a great book for someone who wants to know more about the way adams thought, and how he was thought of by his friends. The
non-eulogy at the end by biologist Richard Dawkins is really touching. That, and several other portions of the book, are already available online:
The essays cover everything from a hilarious step by step guide to making the perfect cup of tea to a story about what it is like to climb mt. kilamanjaro(sp?) while wearing a rhino suit (He was very passionate about environmental causes, and was one of the people doing this to raise money for rhino conservation.)
BTW, Adams said that of all the book he had written, his favorite was
Last Chance To See.
I'd even recommend this book to people who don't care about environmental causes, because
Adams talking about biologists is just as funny as him talking about sci-fi.
Some of the descriptions in LCTC (e.g. traveling on a boat with chickens who eye you warily because they suspect you will be eating them later) are priceless.
Dude, I miss HNN. Just thought I'd let you know that I used to read it all the time, and submitted fairly often, too. I appreciated your efforts. Also, not that you would remember me, but I want to thank you for being polite to me.
I talked to you at BlackHat one year(can't remember which one). I was one of the wanna-bes hovering around at the opening mixer while you were eating with Jericho and some of the other people from attrition.org. You were really nice to me, despite my annoying fanboy behavior.
The same is true of Hobbit. He talked to me for about an hour friday night of DC6, and I thought that was the high point of that con. So many of the people with major reputations are rude (e.g. Route)....It is really cool that you guys don't act that way.
Slashdot Mirror
slashdot discussed it at length a few years ago. The principles are well known, and the soviet military has been using 200+ mph supercavitating torpedos since the 1970s. The best article on the subject that I know of is from the May 2001 Scientific American
the torpedos in question are old news, and have been discussed here several years ago.
6 25 1&mode=thread&tid=126
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/06/164
I think the soviet skhval torpedos that have this capability were designed back in the 1980s.....
http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/f light_data/flt_data.htm
I'll buy you the DVD set if you'll give me one of your kidneys. Those things are worth some serious money on the black market organs market
Of *course* you have to install patches. There is a bored 11 year old out there somewhere who thinks can prove he's "133t" by downloading a sploit off of packetstorm and owning your box.
:(
It doesn't matter that he has no knowledge of how to code a similar sploit himself, or that he could not admin your university WAN. It doesn't matter that university cut-backs mean you don't have enough money for a test LAN to make sure the latest buggy patches won't break business critical software/services or bring your servers to their knees. All that matters is that he can go on IRC and tell everyone how "k-rad 133t" he is.
Stupidity wants to be free!
We have several people on slashdot who are professional coders and engineers who work for companies making automotive mod chips. Hopefully some of them will weigh in here....
I would expect them to make the first music 'bot sing "....Marvin, I love you"
You've probably been wishing for a large, You've probably been wishing for a large, armored, waterproof, 15-hour-battery-life, rubberized PDA, haven't you? , haven't you?
Nope, I'm waiting for the small You've probably been wishing for a large, armored, waterproof, 15-hour-battery-life, rubberized PDA...with lasers!
It has been a looong time since I saw that movie, but I seem to remember the bike being an electric vehicle, and this is not one.
We already have. It is called SCP
that each download is a loss of a "potential sale". That's why they always talk to congress about "loss of potential sales dollars".
The fact they won't admit that there are millions of casual listeners who may like a piece of music, but not like it enough to buy it.
Whoever is coding this must be *REALLY* good. I remember Theo saying that SMP had too many opportunities for race conditions....
even the fancy certifications were not enough to keep people employed after the dot bomb. I am letting my CISSP lapse because it didn't do me any good.
"Intelligent design" doesn't make any predictions about the nature of the universe. Because it makes no predictions, it is not falsifiable. Things that are not falsifiable cannot be examined with science, and can never be tested with science. Science books discuss science. "Intelligent design" is not science, and it cannot examined with science, so it doesn't belong in a science book.
Those are certainly arguments that are used against pascal's wager, but they certainly are not the best argument.
As they say at atheistparents.org:
Take that argument one step farther. Beliefnet.com lists 17 major types of beliefs (sidebar). Assume that eight of them say they are the only correct religion (I think it is actually higher than that) and that one of those religions is correct. If pascal's wager is accurate, there is an 87% chance that you will pick the wrong religion and die.
(Yes, I know I've ignored the probability of each religion being chosen...that's too complicated for my tastes. You get the point. Someone more movitaved than me can track down worldwide memberships and try to get better figures.)
Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is that which has no reliable undisputed evidence...
....such as primordial goop turning into puddles of proteins
Here are 29 different pieces of evidence for macroevolution
Yup, the origin of life is still a sticky question. However, "evolution" != "abiotic genesis of life". Evolution is a change in genetic compostion of a population, nothing more, nothing less.
Just put your mouse over the link word Savannah(sp?), and the bottom of your browser will show that the link goes to savannah.gnu.org. It is the box that got rooted. Figuring that out takes about .5 seconds.
Back in 2001, Microsoft's Steve Lipner said that code "Review is boring and time consuming, and it's hard,". They don't seem to understand that many people get a lot of satisfaction in doing that. Many people look for things to post to bugtraq because doing so is *fun* for them.
Steve Balmer's recent statement about vulnerability researchers - 'I wish those people just would be quiet' - is downright silly. They are the biggest company on the block right now, and there's always going to be someone who wants to make the big corporation look silly. Microsoft needs to wake up to the fact that there will *always* be someone who is a) bored, and b) wants to make them look bad.
it has gotten some really good reviews, too.
- Dawkins' Lament for Adams
- Adams's interview with American Atheists
- Adams' s excellent speech at Digital Biota
The essays cover everything from a hilarious step by step guide to making the perfect cup of tea to a story about what it is like to climb mt. kilamanjaro(sp?) while wearing a rhino suit (He was very passionate about environmental causes, and was one of the people doing this to raise money for rhino conservation.)BTW, Adams said that of all the book he had written, his favorite was Last Chance To See. I'd even recommend this book to people who don't care about environmental causes, because Adams talking about biologists is just as funny as him talking about sci-fi. Some of the descriptions in LCTC (e.g. traveling on a boat with chickens who eye you warily because they suspect you will be eating them later) are priceless.
Dude, I miss HNN. Just thought I'd let you know that I used to read it all the time, and submitted fairly often, too. I appreciated your efforts. Also, not that you would remember me, but I want to thank you for being polite to me.
I talked to you at BlackHat one year(can't remember which one). I was one of the wanna-bes hovering around at the opening mixer while you were eating with Jericho and some of the other people from attrition.org. You were really nice to me, despite my annoying fanboy behavior.
The same is true of Hobbit. He talked to me for about an hour friday night of DC6, and I thought that was the high point of that con. So many of the people with major reputations are rude (e.g. Route)....It is really cool that you guys don't act that way.