I disagree entirely. Assuming the system is encrypted and password protected then there's not that much difference between it and cable. The only difference from a hacker's perspective is he isn't immediately locatable - and the real bad guys don't hack new targets from their own machines anyway, they do it remotely from their first kill.
A well-managed public service will always be more cost-effective than the same service provided by a well-managed private operation, because there's no profits being taken out before the bottom line. That's basic math.
Could you spare a few minutes to come over here and teach basic maths* to Tony Blair and his idiot friends before the UK gets bankrupted in the name of progress?
Justin.
* This difference is how I know you are not here already.
Couldn't agree more. D'you think our anonymous, cowardly friend is suppressing his real feelings? Gay this, gay that, he's gotta be over-compensating;-)
Sort of like saying "I've only seen this Simpsons 20 times before, so maybe I'll just finish watching Cowboy Bebop instead".
Strange to read that, cos I bought a TiVo for us a couple of years ago, and that means that we never watch anything unless we actually want to. We used to watch so much crap waiting for something decent that was on in half an hour. Now we watch everything a day late (at least), but never, ever, watch a Simpsons we've seen 20 times before.
Same with downloads. I only d/l stuff I've either missed, or can't get. I really can't be bothered d/ling stuff on the off chance I'll want some filler later - I've got my life back off the telly, and I'm keeping it that way.
Dear god, what brilliant arguing tactics you have: "no, its not". Thanks for your input...
If it helps you to understand, I was referring to the imbalance between the centripetal force required for the observed rotation of galaxies and predicted gravitic strength based on the amount of observable material.
Simply put: they don't match.
We can postulate one of: * we observe the rate of rotation wrongly * we observe the amount of mass wrongly * we have bad rules for rotation * we have bad rules for gravity * something else
Some people have postulated a spherical shell of 'dark matter' around each galaxy, in line with option 2. The only force it interacts with is gravity, yet for no readily apparent reason it doesn't fall in to the centre of the galaxy. One presumes its own rotation is perfectly balanced with its gravitational attraction, but normally that only happens for a rotating *disk*, not a sphere. Strange, no?
Can you see yet why I agree that it's a hack, yet also observed that it might still be right, given that the universe *is* weird, as anyone who's understood GR and QM will agree?
Geek: Hey that's my software you're using! Major: Huh? Did someone say something? Geek: You've copied my software! Major: So? Geek: It's not licensed for military use. I insist you erase it immediately. Major: Talk to my evil killer robot. It's in there. Geek: Wow. Imagine a beowolf cluster of those!
Oh come on, it is a pretty good point. Gravity isn't behaving as we'd expect, so let's postulate lots and lots and lots and lots of heavy shit that does nothing else at all sitting in just the right place - and nowhere else. That's a hack. It may still be right.
I've always preferred to think that the equations of general relativity might be imperfect. After all, Newton's equations are simplifications of Einstein's, there's no reason why his might not be simplifications of <insert future clever bastard's name here>
By way of example, the only reason I still have a Windows box in the house (although currently it's fucked -- got a trojan of some kind!) is to run the printer, cos the F/OSS version doesn't support duplex printing.
The calculation, according some blokey on bbc radio4 a few weeks ago is about 30 mins per day for your average brit, 15 morning and 15 afternoon. A few days ago I heard 15 mins at noon recommended as the proportion of high UV and low UV is better for making Vitamin D and lower for making cancer cells then.
I hate to be a pita here, but when there's a kernel of truth in it it isn't prejudice, it's observation. For example:
I spent a while travelling over there a while ago, as my parents were working at the University of Champaign-Urbana. Now, I have the spiffiest English accent. Of all the people I met who tried to guess my nationality, fully 75% thought I was Australian. East coast and west coast and University people made up the 25%, and I'm guessing you're in one of those categories or similar, so I understand your pain.
Want to run *two* webservers behind NAT? Say goodbye to half of your visitors behind stupid proxies that only relay requests to port 80.
I've run two webservers behind NAT. I just read the http request on one machine, differentiate based on name and forward to the relevent server. Piece of piss. Dunno what you're whinging about.
You might have a point if your example was some kind of UDP layer, but that's the fault of protocols that rely on IP instead of name. Any fule kno that IP != name.
I'm impressed. FYI, I've a degree in physics and another in maths, including SR and lots of GR, right up to tensor analysis, and I couldn't think of the answer!
Putting your answer in generic Physics terms, so I can remember it, I get:
The geodesic curves followed by two free-floating masses will converge differently when both are attracted to another object or objects than when they are only attracted towards each other.
Neat.
J. (For less inspired answers to my question, see other replies!)
This is what always amazes me: so many people in the states know this, yet it still goes on.
Time for another civil war perhaps? Or you could always ask to come back into the fold and get ruled by Tony Blair. No, on the other hand, civil war is the better option.
The thing that needs explaining to me would be "frames of reference".
Let me help: A frame of reference is anywhere from which you can observe anything. Really!
You sat in a chair is a frame of reference from which you observe the telly which is not moving much relative to you. You in a car moving across the surface of the earth is a FoR from which you observe roadsigns whipping past you at 70mph. You in a space ship is a FoR from which you observe stars and planets zooming past you at half the speed of light. The equations must also work perfectly if your FoR is sat on the planet watching the spaceship whizz past - it is relative).
The answer to your second question (why not 1.5c) is simply this: that's the way the universe works. The only reason for asking the question is that you are automatically applying Newtonian mechanics to the world, and the equations of NM are in fact simplified versions of Einstein's equations which are jolly good approximations if the relative speed of the observed thing is much less than speed of light (v << c). Thus they work great for monkeys climbing trees, and we have evolved brains that understand those rules (well, Darwin says so).
Once you look at an object moving relative to you with an appreciable fraction of the speed of light those rules just don't work. Ask God for more info. For once, Darwin doesn't know either;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree entirely. Assuming the system is encrypted and password protected then there's not that much difference between it and cable. The only difference from a hacker's perspective is he isn't immediately locatable - and the real bad guys don't hack new targets from their own machines anyway, they do it remotely from their first kill.
J.
Could you spare a few minutes to come over here and teach basic maths* to Tony Blair and his idiot friends before the UK gets bankrupted in the name of progress?
Justin.
* This difference is how I know you are not here already.
Couldn't agree more. D'you think our anonymous, cowardly friend is suppressing his real feelings? Gay this, gay that, he's gotta be over-compensating ;-)
J.
Strange to read that, cos I bought a TiVo for us a couple of years ago, and that means that we never watch anything unless we actually want to. We used to watch so much crap waiting for something decent that was on in half an hour. Now we watch everything a day late (at least), but never, ever, watch a Simpsons we've seen 20 times before.
Same with downloads. I only d/l stuff I've either missed, or can't get. I really can't be bothered d/ling stuff on the off chance I'll want some filler later - I've got my life back off the telly, and I'm keeping it that way.
Justin.
Dear god, what brilliant arguing tactics you have: "no, its not". Thanks for your input...
If it helps you to understand, I was referring to the imbalance between the centripetal force required for the observed rotation of galaxies and predicted gravitic strength based on the amount of observable material.
Simply put: they don't match.
We can postulate one of:
* we observe the rate of rotation wrongly
* we observe the amount of mass wrongly
* we have bad rules for rotation
* we have bad rules for gravity
* something else
Some people have postulated a spherical shell of 'dark matter' around each galaxy, in line with option 2. The only force it interacts with is gravity, yet for no readily apparent reason it doesn't fall in to the centre of the galaxy. One presumes its own rotation is perfectly balanced with its gravitational attraction, but normally that only happens for a rotating *disk*, not a sphere. Strange, no?
Can you see yet why I agree that it's a hack, yet also observed that it might still be right, given that the universe *is* weird, as anyone who's understood GR and QM will agree?
Justin.
It already ran an early distro... later versions of Xine don't jump while playing "Help me Obi-wan, you're my only hope".
J.
Geek: Hey that's my software you're using!
Major: Huh? Did someone say something?
Geek: You've copied my software!
Major: So?
Geek: It's not licensed for military use. I insist you erase it immediately.
Major: Talk to my evil killer robot. It's in there.
Geek: Wow. Imagine a beowolf cluster of those!
Oh come on, it is a pretty good point. Gravity isn't behaving as we'd expect, so let's postulate lots and lots and lots and lots of heavy shit that does nothing else at all sitting in just the right place - and nowhere else. That's a hack. It may still be right.
I've always preferred to think that the equations of general relativity might be imperfect. After all, Newton's equations are simplifications of Einstein's, there's no reason why his might not be simplifications of <insert future clever bastard's name here>
Justin.
As a Debian/Xandros user, I can confirm that I can't even remember how we used to do this any more ;-)
J.
By way of example, the only reason I still have a Windows box in the house (although currently it's fucked -- got a trojan of some kind!) is to run the printer, cos the F/OSS version doesn't support duplex printing.
J.
The calculation, according some blokey on bbc radio4 a few weeks ago is about 30 mins per day for your average brit, 15 morning and 15 afternoon. A few days ago I heard 15 mins at noon recommended as the proportion of high UV and low UV is better for making Vitamin D and lower for making cancer cells then.
HTH,
J.
J.
I hate to be a pita here, but when there's a kernel of truth in it it isn't prejudice, it's observation. For example:
I spent a while travelling over there a while ago, as my parents were working at the University of Champaign-Urbana. Now, I have the spiffiest English accent. Of all the people I met who tried to guess my nationality, fully 75% thought I was Australian. East coast and west coast and University people made up the 25%, and I'm guessing you're in one of those categories or similar, so I understand your pain.
J.
J.
Bastard! You may be right :(
I do not believe in torturing anyone because unless you can test the answers in some way, it's no damn use whatsoever.
If it was 'tell me how to destroy this bomb' I might see the point, but 'tell me where you last saw Osama' is utterly useless.
'sides, it's evil, like you said.
J.
I've run two webservers behind NAT. I just read the http request on one machine, differentiate based on name and forward to the relevent server. Piece of piss. Dunno what you're whinging about.
You might have a point if your example was some kind of UDP layer, but that's the fault of protocols that rely on IP instead of name. Any fule kno that IP != name.
Justin.
That's my biggest gripe too. Apart from that it makes clean, neat HTML IMO.
J.
I'm impressed. FYI, I've a degree in physics and another in maths, including SR and lots of GR, right up to tensor analysis, and I couldn't think of the answer!
Putting your answer in generic Physics terms, so I can remember it, I get:
The geodesic curves followed by two free-floating masses will converge differently when both are attracted to another object or objects than when they are only attracted towards each other.
Neat.
J.
(For less inspired answers to my question, see other replies!)
I'm a worshipper of Bacchus, you insensitive clod!
J.
There is a simple pattern for possessive apostrophes: nouns take them, pronouns don't.
For example: the item is... his, hers, theirs, ours vs the item is John's, Britain's, my dog's etc
Admittedly these days (God, I'm only 34), I rarely meet anyone who knows what a pronoun is...
Justin.
This is what always amazes me: so many people in the states know this, yet it still goes on.
Time for another civil war perhaps? Or you could always ask to come back into the fold and get ruled by Tony Blair. No, on the other hand, civil war is the better option.
J.
Are you sure?
What's the mechanical means to tell if I am floating in deep space or falling down a liftshaft (in a vacuum, obviously ;-).
J.
Let me help: A frame of reference is anywhere from which you can observe anything. Really!
You sat in a chair is a frame of reference from which you observe the telly which is not moving much relative to you. You in a car moving across the surface of the earth is a FoR from which you observe roadsigns whipping past you at 70mph. You in a space ship is a FoR from which you observe stars and planets zooming past you at half the speed of light. The equations must also work perfectly if your FoR is sat on the planet watching the spaceship whizz past - it is relative).
The answer to your second question (why not 1.5c) is simply this: that's the way the universe works. The only reason for asking the question is that you are automatically applying Newtonian mechanics to the world, and the equations of NM are in fact simplified versions of Einstein's equations which are jolly good approximations if the relative speed of the observed thing is much less than speed of light (v << c). Thus they work great for monkeys climbing trees, and we have evolved brains that understand those rules (well, Darwin says so).
Once you look at an object moving relative to you with an appreciable fraction of the speed of light those rules just don't work. Ask God for more info. For once, Darwin doesn't know either ;-)
J.
Do you realise quite how much you sound like Douglas Adams' writing in the H2G2?
I can almost hear Simon Jones voice saying "flaaaygrant use of elec'tricity"
J.