No, it doesn't apply to rockets. Escape velocity refers only to objects without any kind of propulsion, and rockets have one.
I can't see why you couldn't leave Earth's gravitational field at any speed you wanted. Now, at 200,000 miles you might fall down, if you run out of fuel. But at that point the escape velocity would be much lower than on the surface.
Question: What does escape velocity have to do with this, unless the satellite is shot from a cannon? From what I understand, escape velocity is the velocity needed for an object without propulsion to fly off to space despite gravity.
However, if you've got a rocket, that shouldn't matter. If you have something that keeps pushing you'll eventually get to space, even if it's ascending at 1 KM/h.
Since when justice is about jailing people with no good reason? The more attention is paid to make sure there is proper proof of guilt, the better. Sure some criminals might go free, but I'd say that's a good thing. First, less innocent people will go to jail. Second, it'll make forensic science improve faster.
No, I think that's not right. For our purposes, those people are stupid regardless of whether they get the mail or not. And since spam is sent in huge volumes, it's not completely unreasonable to suppose that all of those 10000 could have been mailed, if there was spam sent to only 200 million.
It's a dump of the framebuffer console. To view it, you've got to run Linux with vesafb, for example. Just "cat kde.fbdump >/dev/fb0". You need to use the right bit depth and resolution for it to work though, and it's not specified.
My laptop (HP nx5000) seems to idle at about 9 watts when on battery and conserving power, about 15-17 without any power saving. Not very sure about what it uses when connected to the grid, but seems to draw somewhere about 40W when charging.
I calculated this from the data in/proc/acpi, from the battery voltage and discharge rate. Voltage is about 12V, discharge rate is usually about 850 mA when conserving power.
Well, I followed the instructions from this page, and from the looks of it, it *should* be supported. It explains how to use distcc during the bootstrap, too.
I googled a bit to take a look at this mudflap thing. While it looks interesting, the system looks considerably more complicated than -fstack-protector and should be noticeably slower too.
If I understood correctly, -fstack-protector simply adds a guard value and checks it hasn't been overwritten. The performance overhead is minimal. On the other hand, mudflap does some rather intensive checking that involves things like lookup tables, which obviously has to take more time than checking if a the guard value is still what it should be.
According to this PDF, mudflap can have a really high performance penalty in bad cases. The performance section is rather short though, so it's not very clear what gets slowed down the most.
I don't know what's up with distcc, but every time I try it, it ends failing at some point. For example a few days I was installing Gentoo, with CFLAGS having -fstack-protector, and distcc crashed somewhere in the bootstrap due to the stack protection. I didn't figure out if it's some kind of conflict, or the stack protector kicked in due to a bug.
I also heard reports from people about Gentoo not completing the basic installation when trying to do with with distcc even without the stack protector.
The idea itself is really nice, but at least for me doesn't seem to work nearly as well as it should.
Well, to be fair, Google returns exactly the same pictures if you google for images. It's nothing that can be fixed with an option to hide the images, anyway.
Now, it may not be groundbreaking, or it may not be better than Google, but the images thing doesn't look like a very big problem to me
The actual punishment those people got isn't what I'm talking about. It may be too little, or it may be too much, but at least it's been decided by a jury and a judge, and the law didn't come out of thin air.
If it was your way, the pentalty of pirating software would vary from product to product, and sometimes include such nice things as formatting the whole hard disk, downloading child porn, flashing the BIOS with random junk.
Good luck buying from this guy, btw, people like these usually don't stay in business for long. In fact, somebody said somewhere he was nearly bankrupt.
Hmm, I can't say I agree a big part of that journal For example I disagree with the parts about marriage, and Bush, who I don't like at all, for example. Now, I think Gandhi interprets it in a different way. I think it "eye for an eye" should be understood as an upper bound, not as something to follow in all cases. "eye for an eye" could continue working even today, in the sense of not making the punishment worse than the crime.
1. It's not straightforward. There's no attempt to make a matching punishment. Say, what if due to the loss of the home directory you lose $1000? Some people have years of personal data there. This is about the equivalent of stripping somebody's house clean of all documents as revenge for a $30 theft.
2. I'm an atheist. I couldn't care less about what Christians think about revenge, but my intelligence tells me randomly destroying people's data is going to backfire sooner or later, and it's wrong to begin with.
Yes, actually I want the government to get involved. In fact, I'd even like to see this guy charged. This despite that I'm very far-left by US standards. While I think that the less government intervention the better, I think that allowing anybody who thinks they have been wronged to exact revenge in some arbitrary manner won't help maintain a stable society.
Even as a developer, I don't think any program is so important as to destroy an user's data when it thinks it's been pirated. Programmers aren't perfect, we make mistakes. The damage could be done to the wrong person. It's also not our job to pronounce judgement over those who ilegally copy our works.
This kind of revenge is also harmful if you want the small developers to prosper. If every developer out there did this kind of thing, eventually users would get annoyed enough with this. From there I can see several things they could do: Use exclusively software made by big companies, use only Free Software, or decide all this stuff is too dangerous and complicated. None of those options will do much good to small commercial software developers.
Just take a look at those links in this article. This programmer got a *lot* of negative pubicity. Myself, I'll bookmark this to make sure I never buy anything from them. This isn't resulting in more capital, it resulted in stopping the development completely.
Excuse me, but as a programmer I think that this kind of thing is completely immoral, unreasonable and just plain wrong.
First, it's revenge. In a civilized society, people don't exact revenge on other people in arbitrary manners. We have the law for that. It may be perfect, but it's a lot better than if everybody was judge, jury and executioner.
Second, it's definitely not a proper thing to do if you want to have the slightest amount of trust from your users. The programs you write have to be well behaved and avoid things like this. Many users ignore the amount of trust they place in the programs they install. Every moron like this one only serves to hurt the industry as a whole. The small developers might hate piracy, but one thing they definitely don't want is grandma thinking that it's better to stick to MS software, because you never know who could screw you.
In ancient times, when "eye for an eye" appeared it was very reasonable, because it actually set an upper bound on punishment. It's not "you break my arm, so I break your", but "you break my arm, and AT MOST I break your arm, I can't set your house fire"
Now, while in old times this was quite reasonable compared to having no bound at all, currently it's considered rather draconian.
From this should follow that currently it's completely unacceptable even by ancient standards to inflict a greater punishment than the damage that was caused to you. Therefore, doing stuff like deleting all of an user's data is unreasonable IMHO, since there's no attempt to be even remotely reasonable. The damage done as revenge can end being much greater than what was done to you, which is not only impossible to justify in the current society, but also could get you in lots of trouble.
Seriously. It's much easier to pirate some games than to buy it. The amount of inconvenience involved in running the legal product is sometimes quite amazing.
For example, recently I bought Neverwinter Nights and both expansions. Previoulsly I had the pirated NWN, but of course I couldn't play online with it. So after I found I in fact like it, I bought two copies of NWN + SoU, and then a HotU one too.
Installing it on Linux was a bit unintuitive, but I can live with that. Next problem was that the font of the CD key was illegible, and "A", "R", and "O", "D" and "0" look the same. Just great, with a pirated CD it installs directly, and with the legal one I need to spend 15 minutes trying to figure out which is the right key. And what if I happen to find another valid one, but which is not mine?
For the SoU expansion, Bioware forgot to include some background music. The sad thing about this is that the pirate copy of SoU probably comes with the sound files on the CD, or at least it's something that could be easily done.
Then there are some games in which copy protection goes to ridiculous levels, like installing special drivers. I *hate* this kind of crap, which is almost all the games I play are on Linux, where this stuff hopefully will never become common.
Well, to begin with, it's completely unreasonable, as the amount of damage is pretty much random. A *long* time ago, the idea of "eye for an eye" was established as reasonable punishment. Yes, reasonable, since before people would do things like "You break my arm, I set your house fire with your family inside". Eye for an eye set a reasonable upper bound which wasn't that bad in those times. Trying to go back to before that by this kind of completely unreasonable revenge is ridiculous.
Besides that you have a legal problem. I'm fairly sure that somebody could argue that even though they caused you a $100 of loss (or whatever it costs), the nuked home directory caused $10K of loss. That kind of thing could turn out *really* ugly.
Googling around seems to confirm that if you have a alcohol fire, especially one with large amounts of alcohol, and splash a bucket of water on it, first, it won't mix immediately, and second, it will splash around, possibly igniting something that wasn't burning before.
Of course, if you have the fire nicely contained somewhere, add water to it, and wait a while for it to mix, it would work fine. But anectotal evidence on Usenet says somebody burned their basement by splashing a bucket of water on an alcohol file.
It is miscible, but it still floats on it because it has a lower density.
I'm just thinking that you'd be using it in fairly high amounts for this stuff, so either you use a lot of water to make sure it gets very diluted quickly, or you've got to be really careful because it could flow somewhere while still burning.
Hope you were joking about that. Alcohol will float on the water, just like oil.
Now, I *think* you can still use water, but *very* carefully, wetting things to make it more difficult for them to catch fire, spraying water from above. If you flood the area it could get much worse.
Eh, it's physics. The math shouldn't be that hard for a modern CPU.
I think the challenge would be more in making hardware that could react quickly enough and could apply the right amount of force. Tracking the ball sounds fairly simple, just do it like a tablet tracks a pen's position. You probably could even do it with a strong magnet in the ball, and coils of wire under the board.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it doesn't apply to rockets. Escape velocity refers only to objects without any kind of propulsion, and rockets have one.
I can't see why you couldn't leave Earth's gravitational field at any speed you wanted. Now, at 200,000 miles you might fall down, if you run out of fuel. But at that point the escape velocity would be much lower than on the surface.
Question: What does escape velocity have to do with this, unless the satellite is shot from a cannon? From what I understand, escape velocity is the velocity needed for an object without propulsion to fly off to space despite gravity.
However, if you've got a rocket, that shouldn't matter. If you have something that keeps pushing you'll eventually get to space, even if it's ascending at 1 KM/h.
Or I'm missing something here?
So I googled, and I can only see good things.
Since when justice is about jailing people with no good reason? The more attention is paid to make sure there is proper proof of guilt, the better. Sure some criminals might go free, but I'd say that's a good thing. First, less innocent people will go to jail. Second, it'll make forensic science improve faster.
No, I think that's not right. For our purposes, those people are stupid regardless of whether they get the mail or not. And since spam is sent in huge volumes, it's not completely unreasonable to suppose that all of those 10000 could have been mailed, if there was spam sent to only 200 million.
It's a dump of the framebuffer console. To view it, you've got to run Linux with vesafb, for example. Just "cat kde.fbdump > /dev/fb0". You need to use the right bit depth and resolution for it to work though, and it's not specified.
My laptop (HP nx5000) seems to idle at about 9 watts when on battery and conserving power, about 15-17 without any power saving. Not very sure about what it uses when connected to the grid, but seems to draw somewhere about 40W when charging.
/proc/acpi, from the battery voltage and discharge rate. Voltage is about 12V, discharge rate is usually about 850 mA when conserving power.
I calculated this from the data in
Yeah, right. Here's some quick data I came up with by googling:
Cost to ship 1 ton by sea (distance unspecified): $50 to $100
Cost to to lift 1 kg to LEO: $1000
Yeah, shipping by sea is going to be a *really* big problem.
Well, I followed the instructions from this page, and from the looks of it, it *should* be supported. It explains how to use distcc during the bootstrap, too.
Definitely a troll.
I googled a bit to take a look at this mudflap thing. While it looks interesting, the system looks considerably more complicated than -fstack-protector and should be noticeably slower too.
If I understood correctly, -fstack-protector simply adds a guard value and checks it hasn't been overwritten. The performance overhead is minimal. On the other hand, mudflap does some rather intensive checking that involves things like lookup tables, which obviously has to take more time than checking if a the guard value is still what it should be.
According to this PDF, mudflap can have a really high performance penalty in bad cases. The performance section is rather short though, so it's not very clear what gets slowed down the most.
I don't know what's up with distcc, but every time I try it, it ends failing at some point. For example a few days I was installing Gentoo, with CFLAGS having -fstack-protector, and distcc crashed somewhere in the bootstrap due to the stack protection. I didn't figure out if it's some kind of conflict, or the stack protector kicked in due to a bug.
I also heard reports from people about Gentoo not completing the basic installation when trying to do with with distcc even without the stack protector.
The idea itself is really nice, but at least for me doesn't seem to work nearly as well as it should.
Well, to be fair, Google returns exactly the same pictures if you google for images. It's nothing that can be fixed with an option to hide the images, anyway.
Now, it may not be groundbreaking, or it may not be better than Google, but the images thing doesn't look like a very big problem to me
Huh? I'm posting this from a dual Athlon running Gentoo. At work I have a mail server on a machine with a RAID array.
The actual punishment those people got isn't what I'm talking about. It may be too little, or it may be too much, but at least it's been decided by a jury and a judge, and the law didn't come out of thin air.
If it was your way, the pentalty of pirating software would vary from product to product, and sometimes include such nice things as formatting the whole hard disk, downloading child porn, flashing the BIOS with random junk.
Good luck buying from this guy, btw, people like these usually don't stay in business for long. In fact, somebody said somewhere he was nearly bankrupt.
Hmm, I can't say I agree a big part of that journal For example I disagree with the parts about marriage, and Bush, who I don't like at all, for example. Now, I think Gandhi interprets it in a different way. I think it "eye for an eye" should be understood as an upper bound, not as something to follow in all cases. "eye for an eye" could continue working even today, in the sense of not making the punishment worse than the crime.
I do agree completely with this post though.
1. It's not straightforward. There's no attempt to make a matching punishment. Say, what if due to the loss of the home directory you lose $1000? Some people have years of personal data there. This is about the equivalent of stripping somebody's house clean of all documents as revenge for a $30 theft.
2. I'm an atheist. I couldn't care less about what Christians think about revenge, but my intelligence tells me randomly destroying people's data is going to backfire sooner or later, and it's wrong to begin with.
Yes, actually I want the government to get involved. In fact, I'd even like to see this guy charged. This despite that I'm very far-left by US standards. While I think that the less government intervention the better, I think that allowing anybody who thinks they have been wronged to exact revenge in some arbitrary manner won't help maintain a stable society.
Even as a developer, I don't think any program is so important as to destroy an user's data when it thinks it's been pirated. Programmers aren't perfect, we make mistakes. The damage could be done to the wrong person. It's also not our job to pronounce judgement over those who ilegally copy our works.
This kind of revenge is also harmful if you want the small developers to prosper. If every developer out there did this kind of thing, eventually users would get annoyed enough with this. From there I can see several things they could do: Use exclusively software made by big companies, use only Free Software, or decide all this stuff is too dangerous and complicated. None of those options will do much good to small commercial software developers.
Just take a look at those links in this article. This programmer got a *lot* of negative pubicity. Myself, I'll bookmark this to make sure I never buy anything from them. This isn't resulting in more capital, it resulted in stopping the development completely.
Excuse me, but as a programmer I think that this kind of thing is completely immoral, unreasonable and just plain wrong.
First, it's revenge. In a civilized society, people don't exact revenge on other people in arbitrary manners. We have the law for that. It may be perfect, but it's a lot better than if everybody was judge, jury and executioner.
Second, it's definitely not a proper thing to do if you want to have the slightest amount of trust from your users. The programs you write have to be well behaved and avoid things like this. Many users ignore the amount of trust they place in the programs they install. Every moron like this one only serves to hurt the industry as a whole. The small developers might hate piracy, but one thing they definitely don't want is grandma thinking that it's better to stick to MS software, because you never know who could screw you.
You misunderstood. My point was:
In ancient times, when "eye for an eye" appeared it was very reasonable, because it actually set an upper bound on punishment. It's not "you break my arm, so I break your", but "you break my arm, and AT MOST I break your arm, I can't set your house fire"
Now, while in old times this was quite reasonable compared to having no bound at all, currently it's considered rather draconian.
From this should follow that currently it's completely unacceptable even by ancient standards to inflict a greater punishment than the damage that was caused to you. Therefore, doing stuff like deleting all of an user's data is unreasonable IMHO, since there's no attempt to be even remotely reasonable. The damage done as revenge can end being much greater than what was done to you, which is not only impossible to justify in the current society, but also could get you in lots of trouble.
Seriously. It's much easier to pirate some games than to buy it. The amount of inconvenience involved in running the legal product is sometimes quite amazing.
For example, recently I bought Neverwinter Nights and both expansions. Previoulsly I had the pirated NWN, but of course I couldn't play online with it. So after I found I in fact like it, I bought two copies of NWN + SoU, and then a HotU one too.
Installing it on Linux was a bit unintuitive, but I can live with that. Next problem was that the font of the CD key was illegible, and "A", "R", and "O", "D" and "0" look the same. Just great, with a pirated CD it installs directly, and with the legal one I need to spend 15 minutes trying to figure out which is the right key. And what if I happen to find another valid one, but which is not mine?
For the SoU expansion, Bioware forgot to include some background music. The sad thing about this is that the pirate copy of SoU probably comes with the sound files on the CD, or at least it's something that could be easily done.
Then there are some games in which copy protection goes to ridiculous levels, like installing special drivers. I *hate* this kind of crap, which is almost all the games I play are on Linux, where this stuff hopefully will never become common.
Well, to begin with, it's completely unreasonable, as the amount of damage is pretty much random. A *long* time ago, the idea of "eye for an eye" was established as reasonable punishment. Yes, reasonable, since before people would do things like "You break my arm, I set your house fire with your family inside". Eye for an eye set a reasonable upper bound which wasn't that bad in those times. Trying to go back to before that by this kind of completely unreasonable revenge is ridiculous.
Besides that you have a legal problem. I'm fairly sure that somebody could argue that even though they caused you a $100 of loss (or whatever it costs), the nuked home directory caused $10K of loss. That kind of thing could turn out *really* ugly.
Um, Linux runs on the Mac because it's written in portable C. You compile it and get a Mac binary, which won't run on a x86 box.
Same goes for programs, a x86 Linux binary won't run on a Mac even under Linux.
Supreme Court of the United States, I think
It does, but not immediately.
Googling around seems to confirm that if you have a alcohol fire, especially one with large amounts of alcohol, and splash a bucket of water on it, first, it won't mix immediately, and second, it will splash around, possibly igniting something that wasn't burning before.
Of course, if you have the fire nicely contained somewhere, add water to it, and wait a while for it to mix, it would work fine. But anectotal evidence on Usenet says somebody burned their basement by splashing a bucket of water on an alcohol file.
It is miscible, but it still floats on it because it has a lower density.
I'm just thinking that you'd be using it in fairly high amounts for this stuff, so either you use a lot of water to make sure it gets very diluted quickly, or you've got to be really careful because it could flow somewhere while still burning.
Hope you were joking about that. Alcohol will float on the water, just like oil.
Now, I *think* you can still use water, but *very* carefully, wetting things to make it more difficult for them to catch fire, spraying water from above. If you flood the area it could get much worse.
Eh, it's physics. The math shouldn't be that hard for a modern CPU.
I think the challenge would be more in making hardware that could react quickly enough and could apply the right amount of force. Tracking the ball sounds fairly simple, just do it like a tablet tracks a pen's position. You probably could even do it with a strong magnet in the ball, and coils of wire under the board.