Ideologies are power tools. If you were to start a war, you'd have to mobilize the masses. Pick one from: Democracy, Freedom, The Nation, The Flag, King and Country, God, Allah, Protect your family etc.
The "popular" one missing is make out in some way that the people you intend attacking, occupying, disposessing of their land/mineral resources, etc are somehow less human.
I believe the concept of building encryption in the database is a good thing. However, it needs to be done through an open standards body. Vendor specific extensions like this reduce the use of the technology for a majority of applications that demand portability, or rely on technology such as JDBC or ODBC to provide portability and open connectivity.
There's also the basic problem that proprietary encryption. Either in concept or implimentation tends not to actually work very well.
Practically speaking, the two antennas have to see each other with very little obstruction. Some materials are transparent to RF but not to light. Therefore, you can get a signal through bricks and drywall. Stuff that contains steel (like office buildings) or water (like trees) is quite lossy.
With bricks or blocks it depends very much on the brick/block in question. Also drywall partitions can use steel (rather than wood) framing. The only real option is to try and see if it works or not.
Once the FCC's new vision for reusing TV channel bandwidth for wireless networking becomes reality, you'll be able to buy equipment that will probably do 3 miles via ground wave propagation just fine.
Though cables and pipes through the ground will not help matters... There is also the issue protection against lightning or faulty power cables.
If 3d was impressive enough to sell lots of units, they'd still be making lots of 3d movies. They aren't, because the technology for displaying 3d is still not impressive enough nor widely spread.
There's also the difficulty that the shooting needs to be specifically planned for 3D. Otherwise there is a risk of the result looking silly or even inducing motion sickness.
We're not talking about real life here, we're simply talking about tricking the eye into believing it is seeing something slightly 3 dimensional. Also take in mind all 3d movies are 2d images. And I'f you've seen some of the 3d imax movies you'd probably agree that what you see really does look close to real life.
The usual "trick" is film with 2 cameras short distance apart. Then project in such a way that the right camera's image is only seen by the viewer's right eye and the left image is only seen by the viewer's left eye. There are single camera techniques but they require shots to be carried out in certain ways.
I haven't RTFA, but I'm dubious about this claim. There simply isn't enough information in a 2D image to construct a 3D image. If there were, your brain would already do it (and, in fact, already does to a limited extent). I don't see how computer technology is going to improve on what your brain can already do.
Especially given that human brains have a vast amount of "world knowlage" to draw on.
They also choose generic names for practically everything (ever sucessfully find something on Micro$oft's website? Ever try to program in wondoze?)
Ironically has Microsoft called their product "Windoze" they would have had a stronger trademark. Using a non-standard spelling of a common word is a time honoured trademark method.
Speaking as someone who's installed web cams in albeit a midly hostile outdoor environment (specically, the hills surrounding Loch Ness) I think it's safe to say the senstive camera is encaused by it's own not-so-sensitive big feck off housing designed to deal with whatever the environment is likely to throw at it (other than perhaps large high velocity rocks, or lava).
Demolition companies put armoured cameras into buildings. These are intended to survive having buildings dropped on them. So getting one which can survive having rocks tossed at it is not likely to be a problem, the difficult bit is getting the signal out.
That is, assmuing the folks at New Zealand GeoNet Project know anything about volcanoes (which I think is a safe bet).
Since they are only taking a picture every hour (at the moment) they probably don't expect the volcano to do anything too exciting. Presumably if things start looking interesting pictures can be taken more frequently.
Most companies have learned the lesson that they are too inert and they are not getting enough turnover. As a result modern toy and household plastics have under 5 years of life and become brittle and break due to decomposition and loss of plastifiers.
This is a blow up toy in full sun. Thus the air inside will constantly expand and contract, might not be long before a valve or seam starts leaking... There's also the effect of the sun on the plastic itself.
Some plastics are even more short lived (plastic bags have under 6 months of life).
With some shopping bags you are lucky if they last 6 seconds:)
Despite this notice, Mr. Schmeiser still used the seed he had saved from his 1997 crop in his 1998 planting. Those fields, when tested by independent authorities, were shown to be 95% to 98% "Roundup resistent". (I bothers me that the the decision uses that term instead of "contains the Monsanto-patented gene". It pre-supposes [maybe rightfully, I don't know] that this resistence could not possibly come from a different gene or natural process.)
The idea of putting these genes into the plants is to enable more pesticide to be put on them. Populations of organisms becoming resistant to a toxin commonly happens through regular evolution. The "textbook example" being antibiotic resistance amongst bacteria.
That's part of the problem with patenting genes & lifeforms compared to physical inventions: life finds a way to spread, whereas a better mouse trap doesn't replicate itself.
It's more a case that patents arn't really appropriate for application to living organisms. Which in addition to self-replicating also mutate and interbreed with similar organisms.
Of course, diesel engines also help mileage, though those are also hard to find around here in cars.
Rudolph Diesel ran his prototype engine on vegetable oil. Similarly Frank Whittle used vegetable oil in his prototype gas turbine. The only reason we have ended up with most of the world's vehicles using petroleum derived fuels is that a century ago these were waste products of the oil industry. Nothing in the technology of internal combustion engines requires the fuel to come from oil... Even with spark-ignition engines, which tend to be more fussy about their fuel than either compression-ignition or gas turbines.
Hollywood Reporter commented that the film offers "no debate, no analysis of facts or search for historical context. Moore simply wants to blame one man and his family for the mess we are now in."
Maybe they'd have been happier if he'd put all the blame on some Saudi caveman instead... This critique is equally applicable to quite a bit of the "mainstream media".
It's interesting that they are asking the FSF for the material, perhaps they are just looking for that needle in the haystack, or they are just trying to drag out the process,
SCO wants to drag things out as long as possible, since a judgement would probably bankrupt them. SCO's lawyers are being paid by the hour so they want to drag it out too.
First of all, the jury selection process has become the jury tampering process. A jury of peers should be a randomly-selected group of eligible people, but it's more or less handpicked nowadays. The verdict is often decided by which lawyer is craftiest in "disqualifying" potential jurors.
e.g. get rid of potential jurors who might be critically examine the evidence presented.
Jurors in the pool should not be asked any questions aside from:
# Do you personally know the plaintiff or defendant?
Should probably be extended to cover everyone involved in the case. Including lawyers, judges and witnesses...
#
# Do you have any hearsay knowledge of this case?
Other than that which has already been made public.
# Have you or any member of your immediate family ever been the victim of a similar crime?
Anything else is jury tampering, and jurors should refuse to answer!
What about the situation of potential juror being a member of a political group which would never consider the evidence. e.g. a "radical feminist" where the accused is a man; a KKK member where the accused is black; a neo-nazi where the accused is Jewish; etc?
Second, there is the question of jury nullification. Judges and prosecutors seldom inform juries of their right and responsibility to return a "not guilty" verdict if they feel that the law does not reflect the values of the community or has not been applied appropriately.
How often are jurors informed that the standard is "proof beyond resonable doubt". With the onus thus being on the prosecution to prove the case.
The vast majority of prisoners copped a plea rather than risk going to trial on a more serious charge represented by a public defender.
Including situations where someone is initimdated into this by being told that they have no chance of being found innocent at a trial. Especially in their appointed lawyer has no interest in taking any case to trial.
If a majority of suspects went through a jury trial the system would collapse from overload.
Overload of judges and lawyers, maybe. Of course if the prosecutors didn't show up there would be no need for a trial anyway...
I had a friend who while serving as a Grand Jury foreman actually said "no" to a District Attorney. He told me the amount and intensity of intimidation and outright threats ("hope your wife doesn't have any traffic stops for the next 10 years") that rained down on him as a result was astonishing.
This says quite a bit about the character of someone who is ment to be a "public servant".
Basically, it's an unreliable but better-than-nothing safety backstop behind unchecked buffers. If somebody manages to exploit a buffer overflow, there's a semi-random chance that the virus code might just crash into being allocated into another area marked NX, and when the execution point gets there the underlying application starts to crash.
It is a lot easier for the virus writer to predict what will happen in a "binary monoculture". e.g. carefully crafting the attack so that it will hook into pre-existing code.
Of course, any memory space intended for data and not code should be marked NX... are people going to be smart enough to actually do that when on hardward that supports it?
Probably not when it is the same programmers who can't even understand file permissions and OS privileges.
Then again, in a flight simulator I've flown the 747 straight up so you could approach the burn and then climb hard while dropping the water.
Dropping water will cause any plane to climb. Anyway how do you get a 747 to climb vertically? Even with full engine power you'd need quite a bit of airspeed. The thrust to weight ratio of an airliner is rather less than one.
I know one feature of firefighting planes such as the Canadair is the ability to refill by skimming the surface of a lake or the sea.
Somehow I can't envisage this with a 747,
It would need to be fitted with something which extended quite a distance below the fuselage. So as to keep the engines out of the water.
and how many 747 sized airstrips do you find near forestry areas?
Maybe the Antanov-124 would be a better option. This has shoulder mounted wings and can land of grass strips.
Slashdot Mirror
Ideologies are power tools. If you were to start a war, you'd have to mobilize the masses. Pick one from: Democracy, Freedom, The Nation, The Flag, King and Country, God, Allah, Protect your family etc.
The "popular" one missing is make out in some way that the people you intend attacking, occupying, disposessing of their land/mineral resources, etc are somehow less human.
I believe the concept of building encryption in the database is a good thing. However, it needs to be done through an open standards body. Vendor specific extensions like this reduce the use of the technology for a majority of applications that demand portability, or rely on technology such as JDBC or ODBC to provide portability and open connectivity.
There's also the basic problem that proprietary encryption. Either in concept or implimentation tends not to actually work very well.
Practically speaking, the two antennas have to see each other with very little obstruction. Some materials are transparent to RF but not to light. Therefore, you can get a signal through bricks and drywall. Stuff that contains steel (like office buildings) or water (like trees) is quite lossy.
With bricks or blocks it depends very much on the brick/block in question. Also drywall partitions can use steel (rather than wood) framing. The only real option is to try and see if it works or not.
Once the FCC's new vision for reusing TV channel bandwidth for wireless networking becomes reality, you'll be able to buy equipment that will probably do 3 miles via ground wave propagation just fine.
Though cables and pipes through the ground will not help matters... There is also the issue protection against lightning or faulty power cables.
If 3d was impressive enough to sell lots of units, they'd still be making lots of 3d movies. They aren't, because the technology for displaying 3d is still not impressive enough nor widely spread.
There's also the difficulty that the shooting needs to be specifically planned for 3D. Otherwise there is a risk of the result looking silly or even inducing motion sickness.
We're not talking about real life here, we're simply talking about tricking the eye into believing it is seeing something slightly 3 dimensional. Also take in mind all 3d movies are 2d images. And I'f you've seen some of the 3d imax movies you'd probably agree that what you see really does look close to real life.
The usual "trick" is film with 2 cameras short distance apart. Then project in such a way that the right camera's image is only seen by the viewer's right eye and the left image is only seen by the viewer's left eye.
There are single camera techniques but they require shots to be carried out in certain ways.
I haven't RTFA, but I'm dubious about this claim. There simply isn't enough information in a 2D image to construct a 3D image. If there were, your brain would already do it (and, in fact, already does to a limited extent). I don't see how computer technology is going to improve on what your brain can already do.
Especially given that human brains have a vast amount of "world knowlage" to draw on.
They also choose generic names for practically everything (ever sucessfully find something on Micro$oft's website? Ever try to program in wondoze?)
Ironically has Microsoft called their product "Windoze" they would have had a stronger trademark. Using a non-standard spelling of a common word is a time honoured trademark method.
This book was from 1986 but I'm certain finding something similar from 1984 would be effortless.
Even if 1986 was the first publication of the book that dosn't mean it wasn't written a few years before.
Speaking as someone who's installed web cams in albeit a midly hostile outdoor environment (specically, the hills surrounding Loch Ness) I think it's safe to say the senstive camera is encaused by it's own not-so-sensitive big feck off housing designed to deal with whatever the environment is likely to throw at it (other than perhaps large high velocity rocks, or lava).
Demolition companies put armoured cameras into buildings. These are intended to survive having buildings dropped on them. So getting one which can survive having rocks tossed at it is not likely to be a problem, the difficult bit is getting the signal out.
That is, assmuing the folks at New Zealand GeoNet Project know anything about volcanoes (which I think is a safe bet).
Since they are only taking a picture every hour (at the moment) they probably don't expect the volcano to do anything too exciting. Presumably if things start looking interesting pictures can be taken more frequently.
Most companies have learned the lesson that they are too inert and they are not getting enough turnover. As a result modern toy and household plastics have under 5 years of life and become brittle and break due to decomposition and loss of plastifiers.
:)
This is a blow up toy in full sun. Thus the air inside will constantly expand and contract, might not be long before a valve or seam starts leaking... There's also the effect of the sun on the plastic itself.
Some plastics are even more short lived (plastic bags have under 6 months of life).
With some shopping bags you are lucky if they last 6 seconds
Despite this notice, Mr. Schmeiser still used the seed he had saved from his 1997 crop in his 1998 planting. Those fields, when tested by independent authorities, were shown to be 95% to 98% "Roundup resistent". (I bothers me that the the decision uses that term instead of "contains the Monsanto-patented gene". It pre-supposes [maybe rightfully, I don't know] that this resistence could not possibly come from a different gene or natural process.)
The idea of putting these genes into the plants is to enable more pesticide to be put on them. Populations of organisms becoming resistant to a toxin commonly happens through regular evolution. The "textbook example" being antibiotic resistance amongst bacteria.
That's part of the problem with patenting genes & lifeforms compared to physical inventions: life finds a way to spread, whereas a better mouse trap doesn't replicate itself.
It's more a case that patents arn't really appropriate for application to living organisms. Which in addition to self-replicating also mutate and interbreed with similar organisms.
Of course, diesel engines also help mileage, though those are also hard to find around here in cars.
Rudolph Diesel ran his prototype engine on vegetable oil. Similarly Frank Whittle used vegetable oil in his prototype gas turbine. The only reason we have ended up with most of the world's vehicles using petroleum derived fuels is that a century ago these were waste products of the oil industry. Nothing in the technology of internal combustion engines requires the fuel to come from oil... Even with spark-ignition engines, which tend to be more fussy about their fuel than either compression-ignition or gas turbines.
Does this guy know how much energy that goes into mining the Uranium?
Together with producing quite a large amount of nasty waste.
The site is biased towards libertarianism, and the "quiz" is overly simplified, but the concept is quite sound IMO.
Over simplified in that it probably should have more than 2 dimensions.
I actually consider myself conservative in most ways, but I find myself diametrically opposed to those in power who call themselves conservative,
:)
Remember that those calling themselves "neo-cons" arn't actually calling themselves "conservatives" in the first place.
Get people so bogged down in shouting people down for being "red" or "blue" without ever touching a real issue. Very clever of them, isn't it?
Maybe it needs changing to "green" and "purple"
Hollywood Reporter commented that the film offers "no debate, no analysis of facts or search for historical context. Moore simply wants to blame one man and his family for the mess we are now in."
Maybe they'd have been happier if he'd put all the blame on some Saudi caveman instead... This critique is equally applicable to quite a bit of the "mainstream media".
Then maybe, once in a while, a guilty person is acquitted. That's better than the alternative.
The problem with politically biased jurors is that there is also a possibility of an innocent person being convicted.
It's interesting that they are asking the FSF for the material, perhaps they are just looking for that needle in the haystack, or they are just trying to drag out the process,
SCO wants to drag things out as long as possible, since a judgement would probably bankrupt them. SCO's lawyers are being paid by the hour so they want to drag it out too.
First of all, the jury selection process has become the jury tampering process. A jury of peers should be a randomly-selected group of eligible people, but it's more or less handpicked nowadays. The verdict is often decided by which lawyer is craftiest in "disqualifying" potential jurors.
e.g. get rid of potential jurors who might be critically examine the evidence presented.
Jurors in the pool should not be asked any questions aside from:
# Do you personally know the plaintiff or defendant?
Should probably be extended to cover everyone involved in the case. Including lawyers, judges and witnesses...
# # Do you have any hearsay knowledge of this case?
Other than that which has already been made public.
# Have you or any member of your immediate family ever been the victim of a similar crime?
Anything else is jury tampering, and jurors should refuse to answer!
What about the situation of potential juror being a member of a political group which would never consider the evidence. e.g. a "radical feminist" where the accused is a man; a KKK member where the accused is black; a neo-nazi where the accused is Jewish; etc?
Second, there is the question of jury nullification. Judges and prosecutors seldom inform juries of their right and responsibility to return a "not guilty" verdict if they feel that the law does not reflect the values of the community or has not been applied appropriately.
How often are jurors informed that the standard is "proof beyond resonable doubt". With the onus thus being on the prosecution to prove the case.
The vast majority of prisoners copped a plea rather than risk going to trial on a more serious charge represented by a public defender.
Including situations where someone is initimdated into this by being told that they have no chance of being found innocent at a trial. Especially in their appointed lawyer has no interest in taking any case to trial.
If a majority of suspects went through a jury trial the system would collapse from overload.
Overload of judges and lawyers, maybe. Of course if the prosecutors didn't show up there would be no need for a trial anyway...
I had a friend who while serving as a Grand Jury foreman actually said "no" to a District Attorney. He told me the amount and intensity of intimidation and outright threats ("hope your wife doesn't have any traffic stops for the next 10 years") that rained down on him as a result was astonishing.
This says quite a bit about the character of someone who is ment to be a "public servant".
Basically, it's an unreliable but better-than-nothing safety backstop behind unchecked buffers. If somebody manages to exploit a buffer overflow, there's a semi-random chance that the virus code might just crash into being allocated into another area marked NX, and when the execution point gets there the underlying application starts to crash.
It is a lot easier for the virus writer to predict what will happen in a "binary monoculture". e.g. carefully crafting the attack so that it will hook into pre-existing code.
Of course, any memory space intended for data and not code should be marked NX... are people going to be smart enough to actually do that when on hardward that supports it?
Probably not when it is the same programmers who can't even understand file permissions and OS privileges.
Then again, in a flight simulator I've flown the 747 straight up so you could approach the burn and then climb hard while dropping the water.
Dropping water will cause any plane to climb. Anyway how do you get a 747 to climb vertically? Even with full engine power you'd need quite a bit of airspeed. The thrust to weight ratio of an airliner is rather less than one.
I know one feature of firefighting planes such as the Canadair is the ability to refill by skimming the surface of a lake or the sea. Somehow I can't envisage this with a 747,
It would need to be fitted with something which extended quite a distance below the fuselage. So as to keep the engines out of the water.
and how many 747 sized airstrips do you find near forestry areas?
Maybe the Antanov-124 would be a better option. This has shoulder mounted wings and can land of grass strips.