Now see, I get this - any day my new P4 is going to show up and I can finally get rid of my Athlon 770. When I bought it, I thought it was 770MHz, but I think 770 is the temp it runs at!
I don't know what half this stuff means. But I think it's cool that someone else does.
Here's the body of the email update:
INTRIGUING ODDITIES IN HIGH-ENERGY NUCLEAR COLLISIONS. Missing debris in the smashup between gold nuclei going at close to the speed of light suggests the creation of a highly unusual plasma environment, researchers have announced at Brookhaven National Laboratory. By smashing together gold ions at Brookhaven's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), scientists are attempting to make and study a state of matter that existed only millionths of a second after the big bang. Called a quark-gluon plasma (QGP), it is a hot, dense soup of individual quarks and gluons. In today's universe, by contrast, quarks come in groups of twos and threes, held together by gluons. This spring, Brookhaven researchers performed a "control" experiment, in which they collided a gold nucleus with a deuteron, a light nucleus consisting of just a proton and neutron. In these and other kinds of nuclear collisions, a pair of quarks from a proton or neutron occasionally gets ejected. In turn each ejected quark produces a stream or "jet" of particles in its wake. In some of the gold-deuteron collisions, the researchers indeed observed pairs of jets flying in opposite directions. But in head-to-head collisions between two gold nuclei, researchers observed only one, rather than two, jets. This property, called jet quenching, suggests that the particle jet traveling in the direction of the collision region is getting absorbed by a hot, dense state of matter. Jet quenching is predicted to occur in the correspondingly hot, dense environment of a quark-gluon plasma, but RHIC experimentalists are not ready to claim the QGP prize quite yet. To verify its presence and rule out rival scenarios, they are planning numerous other experiments for finding other signatures of a QGP. However, the new data has convinced Columbia theorist Miklos Gyulassy that the RHIC team is already seeing a QGP (see http://www-cunuke.phys.columbia.edu/people/g yulass y/Welcome.html). The gold-gold collisions, he and his colleagues calculate, produce an environment 100 times denser than ordinary nuclear matter and display properties predicted in QGP models based on quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the theory of the strong force which holds nuclei together. On June 18, three of the four RHIC experimental groups have submitted papers on the new results to Physical Review Letters and researchers discussed these new results at a special Brookhaven colloquium today. (Brookhaven press release, June 11, http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2003/bnlpr 06110 3.htm.)
It's interesting that Verisign is being charged w/ a higher degree of liability (at least in terms of the penalty sought). Verisign surely has some liability, but more than the individuals who defrauded them? I won't be surprised if the Verisign defense plays their client as an unwitting victim. Of course, all of my comments are based on an article from a highly editorial new source and hearsay, and may have absolutely zero bearing on the applicable laws.:^)
You make good points. But all of those things you listed have one important thing in common: they are entertainment. A phone is a utility - not as essential, perhaps, as electricity and water, but a utility nonetheless. I can choose not to do any of those things you mentioned (of course I regularly choose to do all of them), but for all practical purposes, I must have a phone.
BTW, junk faxing must not be illegal here b/c we get them all the time on the office fax. Then again, I thought being called by a computer recording was illegal, yet I've been getting a lot of those recently too.
...and should be illegal. I want to be careful not to make an assertions that would jeopardize the 1st Amendment, but I feel that telemarketing in general is unethical. Here's my reasoning:
I pay a lot of money for various phone services (> $100/month). Advertising is not one of those services. My phone is not a free ride for marketers.
When telemarketers use the phone line to reach my phone, they are getting a free ride on a service for which I am the one who pays. In a very real sense, I am paying for someone else to have the ability to advertise to me. This is just ridiculous. My land line (which I am essentially required to maintain in order to have certain other utilities) might as well be a direct connection to commercials 24/7. Literally, something like 1 call in 100 is not phone spam. That means I'm paying $20-something dollars per month for the privilege of receiving advertisements. Ridiculous. Would I do this willingly?! Of course not. Do I have a choice? Apparently not. My phone and my wallet are held hostage by telemarketers.
The post did specifically mention rail transport, but still an interesting comment given this excerpt from the CNN report:
"Base spokesman Bob Pepper had no information on whether any higher speeds had been reached by land vehicles other than sleds, because the base doesn't do other types of land speed experiments."
Is it that post a hoax? I'm not aware of its debunking. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what I've read, but I think several commentors are taking that stat out of context. I, for one, would not make any claim that is anything like: Windows Update takes up 45% of Internet bandwidth. When people say stuff like "plus the 60% for spam," and "don't forget the 70% porn," they are jumping to the conclusion that the stat (45%) means "on average." I can't speak of how the post was intended, but the way I read it, a (single?) routine inspection of cache revealed a particularly bad day...and nothing more. (Note also that I said "possibly.") Was it typical? I really don't know. In any event it seemed noteworthy in the context of the reported statments from a knowledgeable MS executive. I think it's good that they are looking at problem.
I see where you are coming from, but I don't reckon it is the same. Hiring the security guard would be more expensive than fixing, irregardless of who is paying. Also, I don't think Microsoft is trying to pass the buck on fixing their broken software. Mr. Fiebig is just stating his informed opinion that, for better or worse, fixing (the implication is security holes) is more expensive than running good antivirus.
I've wondered about this myself. Maybe this is getting off topic, but I would think Microsoft would have special training and reviews specifically to prevent/correct buffer overruns!:^)
Nice info. I'd have modded you up if I'd been given mod rights just now.:^) This sounds better than letting all your clients run separate connections to the internet for automatic updates from MS. But you still have to update all those clients from the internal server holding the SIS, right? Doesn't that still bog down your network? I guess you do have more control over updating during downtimes using the SIS method, though...
All this talk about iTunes and so-called "legitimate" music downloading got me thinking - How are the copyright holders going to know if that "Without Me.mp3" on your system is legitimate? Now, I realize that there are technologies for digitally signing/watermarking content. But what is required in order to examine and verify those signatures/watermarks? I have some ideas, but I'd be interested in hearing what others think. (I'd post this to "Ask Slashdot" but for whatever reason I've been rejected every time but once.)
Yes but they might get a bit iffy with if you were to rip it off the wall and try to photocopy it. Nice try but no star, try for a better ananlagy next time.
That's no better of an analogy. When one copies a file from a network, one is not removing the original in order to make the copy.
Maybe this is getting to far from the point, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, and now all the "blabbering" is just free advertising for Milonic Solutions. :^) I, for one, had never heard of them before this.
Now see, I get this - any day my new P4 is going to show up and I can finally get rid of my Athlon 770. When I bought it, I thought it was 770MHz, but I think 770 is the temp it runs at!
I don't know what half this stuff means. But I think it's cool that someone else does.
g yulass y/Welcome.html).r 06110 3.htm.)
Here's the body of the email update:
INTRIGUING ODDITIES IN HIGH-ENERGY NUCLEAR COLLISIONS. Missing
debris in the smashup between gold nuclei going at close to the
speed of light suggests the creation of a highly unusual plasma
environment, researchers have announced at Brookhaven National
Laboratory. By smashing together gold ions at Brookhaven's
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), scientists are attempting to
make and study a state of matter that existed only millionths of a
second after the big bang. Called a quark-gluon plasma (QGP), it is
a hot, dense soup of individual quarks and gluons. In today's
universe, by contrast, quarks come in groups of twos and threes,
held together by gluons. This spring, Brookhaven researchers
performed a "control" experiment, in which they collided a gold
nucleus with a deuteron, a light nucleus consisting of just a proton
and neutron. In these and other kinds of nuclear collisions, a pair
of quarks from a proton or neutron occasionally gets ejected. In
turn each ejected quark produces a stream or "jet" of particles in
its wake. In some of the gold-deuteron collisions, the researchers
indeed observed pairs of jets flying in opposite directions. But in
head-to-head collisions between two gold nuclei, researchers
observed only one, rather than two, jets. This property, called jet
quenching, suggests that the particle jet traveling in the direction
of the collision region is getting absorbed by a hot, dense state of
matter. Jet quenching is predicted to occur in the correspondingly
hot, dense environment of a quark-gluon plasma, but RHIC
experimentalists are not ready to claim the QGP prize quite yet. To
verify its presence and rule out rival scenarios, they are planning
numerous other experiments for finding other signatures of a QGP.
However, the new data has convinced Columbia theorist Miklos
Gyulassy that the RHIC team is already seeing a QGP (see
http://www-cunuke.phys.columbia.edu/people/
The gold-gold collisions, he and his colleagues calculate, produce
an environment 100 times denser than ordinary nuclear matter and
display properties predicted in QGP models based on quantum
chromodynamics (QCD), the theory of the strong force which holds
nuclei together. On June 18, three of the four RHIC experimental
groups have submitted papers on the new results to Physical Review
Letters and researchers discussed these new results at a special
Brookhaven colloquium today. (Brookhaven press release, June 11,
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2003/bnlp
Mod: Interesting +1, Insightful +1 :^)
It's interesting that Verisign is being charged w/ a higher degree of liability (at least in terms of the penalty sought). Verisign surely has some liability, but more than the individuals who defrauded them? I won't be surprised if the Verisign defense plays their client as an unwitting victim. Of course, all of my comments are based on an article from a highly editorial new source and hearsay, and may have absolutely zero bearing on the applicable laws. :^)
You make good points. But all of those things you listed have one important thing in common: they are entertainment. A phone is a utility - not as essential, perhaps, as electricity and water, but a utility nonetheless. I can choose not to do any of those things you mentioned (of course I regularly choose to do all of them), but for all practical purposes, I must have a phone.
Time to write my Congressman and Senators!
BTW, junk faxing must not be illegal here b/c we get them all the time on the office fax. Then again, I thought being called by a computer recording was illegal, yet I've been getting a lot of those recently too.
...and should be illegal. I want to be careful not to make an assertions that would jeopardize the 1st Amendment, but I feel that telemarketing in general is unethical. Here's my reasoning:
I pay a lot of money for various phone services (> $100/month). Advertising is not one of those services. My phone is not a free ride for marketers.
When telemarketers use the phone line to reach my phone, they are getting a free ride on a service for which I am the one who pays. In a very real sense, I am paying for someone else to have the ability to advertise to me. This is just ridiculous. My land line (which I am essentially required to maintain in order to have certain other utilities) might as well be a direct connection to commercials 24/7. Literally, something like 1 call in 100 is not phone spam. That means I'm paying $20-something dollars per month for the privilege of receiving advertisements. Ridiculous. Would I do this willingly?! Of course not. Do I have a choice? Apparently not. My phone and my wallet are held hostage by telemarketers.
Storm Again Delays Mars Rocket
Storms mysteriously show up on the day of the launch and ruin everything?! Must be a software bug in Mother Nature application.
two words: end users.
I second that! I guess it's good that Slashdot is trying to raise awareness, though.
I hear you. But remember that "we all" is about .01% of the whopping 6% of the world's population that even has access to the internet.
...did Slashdot turn into a political forum?
Check the Washington Post Tech News article
The post did specifically mention rail transport, but still an interesting comment given this excerpt from the CNN report:
"Base spokesman Bob Pepper had no information on whether any higher speeds had been reached by land vehicles other than sleds, because the base doesn't do other types of land speed experiments."
Is it that post a hoax? I'm not aware of its debunking. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what I've read, but I think several commentors are taking that stat out of context. I, for one, would not make any claim that is anything like: Windows Update takes up 45% of Internet bandwidth. When people say stuff like "plus the 60% for spam," and "don't forget the 70% porn," they are jumping to the conclusion that the stat (45%) means "on average." I can't speak of how the post was intended, but the way I read it, a (single?) routine inspection of cache revealed a particularly bad day...and nothing more. (Note also that I said "possibly.") Was it typical? I really don't know. In any event it seemed noteworthy in the context of the reported statments from a knowledgeable MS executive. I think it's good that they are looking at problem.
I see where you are coming from, but I don't reckon it is the same. Hiring the security guard would be more expensive than fixing, irregardless of who is paying. Also, I don't think Microsoft is trying to pass the buck on fixing their broken software. Mr. Fiebig is just stating his informed opinion that, for better or worse, fixing (the implication is security holes) is more expensive than running good antivirus.
I've wondered about this myself. Maybe this is getting off topic, but I would think Microsoft would have special training and reviews specifically to prevent/correct buffer overruns! :^)
Nice info. I'd have modded you up if I'd been given mod rights just now. :^) This sounds better than letting all your clients run separate connections to the internet for automatic updates from MS. But you still have to update all those clients from the internal server holding the SIS, right? Doesn't that still bog down your network? I guess you do have more control over updating during downtimes using the SIS method, though...
I don't speak of it. Craig Feibig does. I took it to mean releasing bug fix updates in general. 98% of Windows Updates are security "patches."
The problem with that method was that it required a static, physical object. We had one in our last office building tucked in a dingy storage room.
I can see TV going this way. As for the military, you can safely bet that the military helped develop the technology (i.e., through a research grant).
CAVE Quake
All this talk about iTunes and so-called "legitimate" music downloading got me thinking - How are the copyright holders going to know if that "Without Me.mp3" on your system is legitimate? Now, I realize that there are technologies for digitally signing/watermarking content. But what is required in order to examine and verify those signatures/watermarks? I have some ideas, but I'd be interested in hearing what others think. (I'd post this to "Ask Slashdot" but for whatever reason I've been rejected every time but once.)
Yes but they might get a bit iffy with if you were to rip it off the wall and try to photocopy it. Nice try but no star, try for a better ananlagy next time.
That's no better of an analogy. When one copies a file from a network, one is not removing the original in order to make the copy.
Maybe this is getting to far from the point, though.