> It does free me up to (cynically) vote for a > third party, FWIW...
And you would not be thusly free otherwise exactly why?
Statewide, let alone nationwide, elections are always decided by more than one vote. Therefor, Electoral College or no, your vote has only one effect: it gives the candidate you vote for one more vote. This is true whether he wins the election or only gets five votes.
In other words, since no single vote determines an election, voting "third party" is no more "throwing away your vote" than is voting for the likely winner.
If it's a cabonaceous chondrite (the most common type) it would almost certainly burn up and/or explode high in the atmosphere with little material reaching the surface. If its solid nickle iron it might very well reach the surface intact and make quite a hole.
Yes. It means that collisions are far, far easier to find then we had believed. This indicates that there is a defect in the algorithm, and it may not be long before someone finds a practical exploit.
The probability of stumbling upon an md5 collision by brute-force is so extremely, mind-bogglingly low that it is far, far, far more likely that the discovery of a collision is evidence of a defect in the algorithm.
> No figures yet on how much of a discount Telstra > got, but MS might want to rethink handing back > all its cash to investors if this is how they're > going to do business from now on..."
It's not as though they had any manufacturing costs.
> This year is not the year to vote libertarian. I > saw it said no better the other night on Real > Time with Bill Mahr. Voting anything other than > the current two parties on the presidential > election means absolutely nothing, because if > you loose, you've wasted your vote.
The election will be decided by more than one vote. Therefor voting Libertarian will have exactly the same effect as voting for Bush or Kerry: your candidate will have one more vote than he otherwise would have.
>...SCO should not be allowed to pull this into > court...
They aren't. In none of their claims in any of their lawsuits do they ever accuse anyone of infringing their copyrights by putting their stuff into Linux.
IBM, on the other hand, is close to getting a declaratory judgement that nothing in Linux infringes SCO's copyrights. In opposing IBM's motion for summary judgement on that declaratory judgement SCO has explicitly said that they are not claiming any infringement by Linux.
Do they get to compile it and run it, or do they have to take Microsoft's word that the binaries that they are running were built from the source that they are seeing?
> Then there's the question of what happens to all > the documentation that has been sent in. I think > that for security and audit purposes, we do need > to keep it in some form.
On the contrary. Yot need to *destroy* those documents for security and audit purposes.
> This time it seems that they are not only > criticizing, but suggesting some procedural > amendments (e.g. patent conflicts resolved by > a judge and not by a jury).
> Microsoft reps sometimes point to Linux > distributions and ask why they can get away with > shipping stacks and stacks of applications without > getting in trouble. The answer to that one, of > course, is that the Linux distributions give you a > choice.
The answer to that one, of course, is that the Linux distributions are not a monopoly.
> Keep in mind that an H-bomb works by fission (of > the primary) - fusion (of the core of the > secondary) - fission (of the jacket of the > secondary).
The proposed laser-ignited bomb would, of course, be pure fusion. The resulting relative cleanliness is one of the advantages.
> This last step accounts for the majority of the > yield.
The ability to produce very low yield bombs is the other advantage.
> But there's plenty of people unknowingly running > executable content. Whether because of hidden > filetypes (yuk!), opening office documents with > macros or unpatched software.
Slashdot Mirror
> It does free me up to (cynically) vote for a
> third party, FWIW...
And you would not be thusly free otherwise exactly why?
Statewide, let alone nationwide, elections are always decided by more than one vote. Therefor, Electoral College or no, your vote has only one effect: it gives the candidate you vote for one more vote. This is true whether he wins the election or only gets five votes.
In other words, since no single vote determines an election, voting "third party" is no more "throwing away your vote" than is voting for the likely winner.
I like Rubbermaid tubs.
Oh. Never mind.
If it's a cabonaceous chondrite (the most common type) it would almost certainly burn up and/or explode high in the atmosphere with little material reaching the surface. If its solid nickle iron it might very well reach the surface intact and make quite a hole.
Eyeglasses are an obvious application. This stuff should be both harder and stronger than silica glass.
> I never heard of this probe until I saw it in a
> magazine. Why not?
Because it doesn't take cool pictures.
Sounds like a "Mystery Spot" to me. That used to be a franchised chain in Michigan.
> Does this collision actually mean anything?
Yes. It means that collisions are far, far easier to find then we had believed. This indicates that there is a defect in the algorithm, and it may not be long before someone finds a practical exploit.
The probability of stumbling upon an md5 collision by brute-force is so extremely, mind-bogglingly low that it is far, far, far more likely that the discovery of a collision is evidence of a defect in the algorithm.
> Probably at the heart of all this is the question
> "what's the Olympics about, exactly?"
Money and fame, of course.
Very. Take a woman out to dinner, offer her spam, and just see how far you get.
> No figures yet on how much of a discount Telstra ..."
> got, but MS might want to rethink handing back
> all its cash to investors if this is how they're
> going to do business from now on
It's not as though they had any manufacturing costs.
> This year is not the year to vote libertarian. I
> saw it said no better the other night on Real
> Time with Bill Mahr. Voting anything other than
> the current two parties on the presidential
> election means absolutely nothing, because if
> you loose, you've wasted your vote.
The election will be decided by more than one vote. Therefor voting Libertarian will have exactly the same effect as voting for Bush or Kerry: your candidate will have one more vote than he otherwise would have.
How does one find out which "Indies" are neither RIAA members nor fronts for members?
> ...SCO should not be allowed to pull this into
> court...
They aren't. In none of their claims in any of their lawsuits do they ever accuse anyone of infringing their copyrights by putting their stuff into Linux.
IBM, on the other hand, is close to getting a declaratory judgement that nothing in Linux infringes SCO's copyrights. In opposing IBM's motion for summary judgement on that declaratory judgement SCO has explicitly said that they are not claiming any infringement by Linux.
Do they get to compile it and run it, or do they have to take Microsoft's word that the binaries that they are running were built from the source that they are seeing?
> Then there's the question of what happens to all
> the documentation that has been sent in. I think
> that for security and audit purposes, we do need
> to keep it in some form.
On the contrary. Yot need to *destroy* those documents for security and audit purposes.
> This time it seems that they are not only
> criticizing, but suggesting some procedural
> amendments (e.g. patent conflicts resolved by
> a judge and not by a jury).
They are proposing a constitutional amendment?
> That way you get extra-orbital launching basically
> for free.
Not for free. The momentum has to come from somewhere (Same goes for everything going up from Earth).
...was the time I dropped a 14" disk drive on my foot.
I don't have a tv at all. I'm pulling the average down.
> Microsoft reps sometimes point to Linux
> distributions and ask why they can get away with
> shipping stacks and stacks of applications without
> getting in trouble. The answer to that one, of
> course, is that the Linux distributions give you a
> choice.
The answer to that one, of course, is that the Linux distributions are not a monopoly.
> ...the GPL, which obligates developers to make
> their modifications available to the public.
The GPL does no such thing.
There is no need for the fibers to be continuous.
> Keep in mind that an H-bomb works by fission (of
> the primary) - fusion (of the core of the
> secondary) - fission (of the jacket of the
> secondary).
The proposed laser-ignited bomb would, of course, be pure fusion. The resulting relative cleanliness is one of the advantages.
> This last step accounts for the majority of the
> yield.
The ability to produce very low yield bombs is the other advantage.
> But there's plenty of people unknowingly running
> executable content. Whether because of hidden
> filetypes (yuk!), opening office documents with
> macros or unpatched software.
Why the hell is the "feature" enabled at all?