Actually, the biggest problem isn't creating pressures (via magnetic bottles and lasers primarily), but maintaining the high temperatures. If the plasma is allowed to interact with the walls of the containment vessel, it cools down too much for the reaction to continue.
Park the moon hitched to the back of your spacecraft in an orbit 384,400 km above Venus.
Wait 500,000,000 years, and the moon will suck off some of Venus' atmosphere.
Earth: sit on your butt reading slashdot.
Mars:
Go to Oort cloud, or wait for a really big comet to work its way into the inner system.
Push that comet into Mars, preferrably an orbit where it will brush the atmosphere without impacting the surface.
Repeat many thousands of times until you have STP.
Mars isn't massive enough to hold its atmosphere, so repeat step 3 as often as neccessary.
And that's it: no other bodies in the solar system can be terraformed. Now, for Mars and Venus, you'll have to probably seed them with some sort of microorganisms to free the oxygen in the atmosphere, which will take an extra 500,000,000 years or so.
Moving comets is pretty easy, and moving planets isn't much harder. Just push asteroids into gravitational slingshot orbits around Io or Europa and you can add or subtract angular momentum from the moon in question with each flyby. It might only take 100,000 years to park the moon around Venus.
After talking to several philosophers and physicists, reading a few metaphysics texts and generally getting as confused as hell, I can tell you this with utter certainty. The answer to your question (What is outside the universe?) is this:
Who cares?
Really: whatever's outside the universe, you cannot reach that stuff---by definition. You cannot observe it, it cannot affect you, and no matter how many Star Trek style warp/wormhole/fairy power transportation means you can dream up, it stays that way. Hell, you can't even grant that the stuff that exists outside the universe actually possesses the property of existence.
If you talk to people about this kind of trivia too long (as I have) you'll go nuts, and realize what's outside of the universe is:
Who cares?
So stop asking this kind of question---it's dolts like me and you who employ the philosophers and armchair physicists.
You're both wrong. Getting to orbit requires attaining the requisite altitude (maybe 100 miles) in addition to the requisite tangental (horizontal) speed. If you don't have the altitude, you'll drag on the atmosphere, and your orbit will decay. If you don't have the tangental speed, you come back down.
BTW, this is why the X-prize will need to have a follow-up contest (Y-prize?) to really open up space: the X-prize teams are trying for altitude, and then falling right back down. They aren't achieving orbit, because they aren't adding the tangental speed.
Dude, learn a little quantum mechanics; google for de Broglie. Basically, electrons aren't little billiard balls, and you can't use Newtonian mechanics to understand an electron beam. Think of an electron beam like a super-high-frequency laser--because that's what it is. BTW, solar flares and coronal mass ejections do have a noticeable effect on some asteroids, but at the distance of the asteroid belt, the flux is pretty small. An electron beam would be much more concentrated.
If you've ever seen a car on fire (which happens all the time), it is obviously a very dangerous situation, but it ain't no bomb. People get this idea from movies, to the point where they never reflect upon the plausibility of the whole thing.
The only way I can think of for a car to explode is for the fuel tank to be completely demolished during a crash in such a way that none of the fuel ignites. Then, the fuel Whoooshes out into the air and achieves a good fuel/air mixture, and at just the right moment, something ignites the whole deal. The correct fuel/air mixture is the (very) hard thing to come by.
Fact is, the scenario I just presented doesn't happen much. Even those exploding trucks from about 15 years ago pretty much turned into flamethrowers, not bombs. If anyone has any references (e.g. news stories) about a single car exploding, I'll happily eat my words.
Actually, you can logarithmically taper the elevator to make up for low tensile strength. The problem is of course, that at GEO (where the tapered elevator would be thickest) the damn elevator would be wider that North America. I don't even know if we could make that much steel without mining below the crust, but it's a pretty mental picture...
You're being a little misleading. You seem to be claiming that the NIDA thinks that heroin is less addictive that tobacco. You link to a page on drugwarfacts.org that paraphrases a quote by a doctor who works for NIDA; the quote being from the New York Times. Here's their reference:
Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for NIDA, Reported by Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 "Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use."
While I'll admit that the chart and graph on the page seem to support your claim, drugwarfacts.org doesn't offer any source for the data in the chart (and graph). Especially considering the title of the (nine year old) NYT article, I'll have to remain doubtful of your claim that tobacco is more addictive than heroin, but I would love to see the data from NIDA that backs up your claim.
Your next claim--that heroin is less deadly than tobacco--is even worse. The link you provided lists the total number of deaths per year for heroin and tobacco. Fair enough, since they report 430,700 tobacco deaths and 16,926 deaths due to all licit and illicit drugs. But your claim is on the danger to an individual. Here's a quote from NIDA:
Heroin abuse is associated with serious health conditions, including fatal overdose, spontaneous abortion, collapsed veins, and infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.
This was copied from NIDA's page on Heroin. Please note that the page I linked to is on NIDA's website. See for yourself.
I can't remember the last time I heard of anyone dying from a fatal overdose of nicotine--and I've known a number of chain-smokers. I think the low number of deaths due to illicit drug use means our policies work.
Your final claim concerns additives to heroin: the health concerns NIDA is referring to here are for the heroin itself--the NIDA website lists the dangers posed by the additives, and they are serious. However, the fact that the additives are dangerous does not change the fact that the heroin is dangerous, too.
I'm not against the legalization of some drugs which are currently illegal, but I am against distorting the truth. Oh yeah, and my.sig is from "The Kids in the Hall;" it doesn't mean I'm a junky.
<mumbles>I don't know why I bother, some people just cannot have their minds changed.
Why oh why oh why does this keep coming up? Sure, you're joking, but seriously: this rock crap was just a way for Heinlein to justify a moon-base. We call it "poetic license." He knew it was BS, too. The fact is that if China did set up a moon base, then the US, the EU, Russia and India would have telescopes in lunar orbit before China even got their Porta-Potties set up. Not to mention the other 500 tracking systems that would be deployed. So, no surprise attack, no secret construction, no military reason to build a mass driver.
So, it's not like China will be able to launch a surprise attack on their enemies with this.
Now, just for argument's sake, say China had a beef with the US; they wanted a bunch (possibly all) Americans dead. So they hurtle a bunch of rocks our way. Assume that the US wouldn't be able to do anything to divert the rocks, so that they'd hit their targets. What would happen if one of these rocks fell down? It depends on the target.
If China targets a(n)...
overseas American military target, they'll get nuked off the moon.
domestic military target, their military will get nuked off the face of the planet, the US military will probably invade China and they'll get nuked off of the moon.
small town in the US (continential or otherwise) or other small civilian target, then Beijing will cease to exist, as will every other major city in China, their military will get nuked off the face of the planet, the US military will probably invade China and they'll get nuked off of the moon.
large city (Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, etc), then every person in China will die, there won't be any military or country to invade and they'll get nuked off of the moon.
If China mounts a full-scale attack of the US, then it will be then end of the world.
But, you might say: "The moon is strategically superior to the Earth, so the US military would be at a disadvantage." The US military will never be at a disadvantage when it can launch a thermonuclear warhead anywhere on the globe with mere minutes of notice. The US military has the hardware and the will to do this.
China will not be able to eliminate the US retailiatory capacity before it can be used; even if (big if) they could destroy the long-range bomber capacity and/or the nuclear missile silos, they'd still have to destroy the submarine fleet. They won't be able to do that, because they won't be able to find the subs.
Still, if China were dumb enough to waste the $25-35 trillion dollars it would take to build a military base on the moon, it would spark an arms race, and we'd suddenly find that the doors of space had been thrown open. Would that be good IYHO?
PS: Sorry to get so heated, but I don't think some things are appropriate to joke about.
Yes, but after ignition the Shuttle computers can gimbal the solid-rocket bosters (SRBs) and space shuttle main engines (SSMEs). This is neccesssary because the SRBs do in fact burn at different rates, and they don't even burn at the same rate over time. This is also nice because the shuttle can (possibly) recover from a SSME shutdown--but not a SRB shutdown.
Anyway, there isn't a rocket that is safer, more efficient and more controlled (and insturmented) than the SSME. Don't forget that, while everyone initially thought the SSME would be the component to fail, they haven't yet: although there were some close calls. The only reason these new engines are possibly not the best for all circumstances is that they're expensive--more expensive to refurbish that some disposable rockets are to build from scratch. And while they undergo a lot of shop work on the ground, they have fired for longer than any rocket in history. The SSME are extraordinarily efficient, the only reason we have SRBs is because the shuttle is so fucking heavy.
So, if we're sending up people, here's what we should do. Redesign the SSME, and mount it on a disposable booster, and put a small crew-only craft on top. Oh wait, that's the OSP.
Am I the only person in the whole world who actually read the report published by the CAIB? It's incredibly painless to find, download and read (ever hear of PDF)?
Ok, I know I'm not the only person, but still.... Anyway, the report talks about what if... in section 6.4. It's the most interesting (aside from the board's version of the stuff in this article) section of the report. In this section, the options Columbia would have had had the managers (Ms. Ham, specifically) agreed to image the orbiter while on-orbit are discussed. There were two options for saving the crew, not zero.
Patch the hole. They considered an emergency spacewalk to "McGuyver" the wing's leading edge. The patch, as such, would require the astronaut to throw all of the titanium wrenches, wristwatches, science experiments, etc, into the hole. Interestingly, the engineers at NASA didn't think this was absurd, just that we lack data to determine if it is viable. So, it was kind of considered a "last-resort" option.
Send Atlantis on a rescue mission. I know a lot of people on this website are of the opinion that "There wasn't anything we could have sent Atlantis on a rescue mission, unless we wanted to throw away two orbiters." However, the board found that the consumables (oxygen, CO2 scrubbers, etc) on Columbia would have been sufficient to sustain the crew until Feb. 15. Atlantis was being processed for launch Mar. 1 (41 days later), and the board found that, working 24 hours a day, Atlantis could be readied for launch Feb. 10, with no testing skipped.
Once Atlantis had rendezvoused with Columbia, the crew could be transfered with ropes. Assuming the crew were safely across, the shuttle could be ditched in the ocean, or boosted to a higher orbit for later salvage.
Really, check out the CAIB report. It's an interesting read, and while it's long and occasionally dry and technical, you can skip around, and only read the parts that interest you. If you're an American citizen, our government paid $300,000,000 to recover debris and study the accident, so you owe it to yourself (you tax-payer, you) to read the report.
Especially read about the "safty-culture" in NASA. This article does a good job of getting the general idea across, but the CAIB report goes into much more detail. The astronauts could have, should have, and were almost saved.
PS: It wasn't in the article but it's in the CAIB report that an employee at NASA actually called the DOD and got them working on a request for imagery, only to have Ms. Ham call and rescind the order 90 minutes later.
Say you've got me and the Earth separated by 30,000 feet.
Now, we all know that the distance between me and the Earth will decrease over time, due to gravity. Here near the surface of the Earth, we think that the Earth stands still, and I fall toward it. I might, on the other hand, say that the Earth rises up to smack me.
In physics, we split the difference, and say that the center of gravity--the weighted average of the respective positions of the Earth and myself--doesn't move, and the Earth and I both move. I'm just stating the principle that there is no preffered inertial frame of reference.
What has this to do with your post? The "reaction" to the gravity "reaching out and grabbing" is the "puller" moving toward the "pullee."
- Fast Serial ATA hard drives
- Three PCI or PCI-X expansion slots
While I'd love to believe that Apple is soon coming out with 970 based machines, these two items in particular are the Joe Slashdot wet-dream wishlist items. Apple will go with the same drives you can get in an Xserve today, and I'd be pretty surprised if the jumped on board PCI-X. The fact is, someone not related to Apple just sat at their keyboard, and tried to make a spec which seemed believable yet got all the Joe Slashdot Apple fanboys hot-and-bothered.
Furthermore, as I'm sure has been mentioned before, this is absolutely not how Apple's marketing engine works. They keep the upcoming hardware stricktly under wraps to discourage the wait-until-the-next-machine-comes-out mentality. They are a profitable company, and they'd like to keep it that way. The way for them to do this is to entice you to buy a machine today.
Going from the Ars Technica article a while back, I don't buy the claims about the speed of the new chip.
Specifically:
On Altivec optimized tasks, these machines have as much as 2 to 2.5 times the through performance as a similarly clocked G4.
Unlike the G4, where the AltiVec unit is integrated rather nicely into the issue unit, and can issue several types of vector instructions in parallel, the 970 can only do a permute in parallel with another instruction. Hence, for some tasks, I would expect the G4 to be almost twice as fast as a similarly clocked 970.
They make a similar claim about the non-AltiVec speed, which I tend to believe. The compiler has to be a little smarter (but Apple did add a bunch of G4 optimizations to gcc anyway), but the 970 can do more per clock the the G4 can, under many circumstances. Not only can it have more instructions in-flight, but it has a much more advanced reordering unit than the G4.
Oh yeah, and when did/. just copy over Apple rumor stories? </obligatory>
Brilliant point; the editors still cannot pull the wool over the collective eyes of Slashdot. It's also very clear to me that this is a blatant leftist conspiracy to try and sway the opinion of we, the technological elite, and garner support for the unholy Iraqi.
It's disgusting--the leftists aren't even trying to hide their motives. These leftists don't admit to supporting terrorists, even though they support Palestine for trying to invade Israel as well as spread lies about US aid to bin Laden and Iraq. Further, the terrorists support the leftists for breaking down the solidarity of the United States.
Let's face it: we need to stand together now--just as the world stands with us--more than any time since WWII.
The United States will usher in a new era of peace and democracy in the Middle East, and for the first time, the bloodthirsty factions of the terrorist state of Iraq will be forced to join the modern, Western world. Some say this war is about oil, and I say, don't we deserve some cheap oil as a reward for liberating an oppressed people? After all, liberation is what this war is all about. But what can we do to help?
We can show our support for our Military personnel, our Military Leadership, our wise (legally elected, thank you Michael Moore) Civilian Leadership, God, our Country, and this war. Show your support by correcting those coworkers, family members and classmates who speak out against the war. Tell them why they should support the war. Remind them of the price traitors pay.
Fear not, for the United States will always prevail!
(Moderators: If you disagree with what I've said, Mod it up as 'Funny', because if what I've said ain't funny, then I'm going to have to go into a corner and cry. If you haven't figured it out, this means I was being sarcastic. If you think I'm not aware of the score of factual errors I've written down, you're an idiot.)
Yes. You simply have to setup some hardware to monitor the amount of time the encryption hardware spends verifying the discs. Then, you try to reverse engineer the particular algorithms they use in the hardware. This isn't as bad as it seems: there's only a finite number of known ways to accomplish something like RSA (or ElGamal, or AES (but I don't think the Xbox uses AES)). This paper might serve as a guide, but you'd likely have to perform simmilar analysis to what the paper's authors did.
Once you did it though, I expect that you could have the key in a day or two. Once again, we are taught that the weakness isn't in the math, it's in the implementation.
This article really should be "A dozen or so things about a half dozen pieces of Mac OS software a geek thinks are cool." Most of his points are valid, but overstated. However, I do disagree with one thing: in the finder (Classic and X) when you drag a file, it does not at first highlight the window that it is in. It's not until you draw that file over another window does the other window get highlighted. Okay, so far so good. However, when you drag the item back to its original location, the originating window gets highlighted. I don't think this is optimal behaviour, but the author of this little web page goes to lengths to point this fact out! If you're going to highlight a window, always do it or never do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Social commentary from someone with the username PornMaster that offends as it invokes God? It must be slashdot.
Actually, the biggest problem isn't creating pressures (via magnetic bottles and lasers primarily), but maintaining the high temperatures. If the plasma is allowed to interact with the walls of the containment vessel, it cools down too much for the reaction to continue.
And that's it: no other bodies in the solar system can be terraformed. Now, for Mars and Venus, you'll have to probably seed them with some sort of microorganisms to free the oxygen in the atmosphere, which will take an extra 500,000,000 years or so.
Moving comets is pretty easy, and moving planets isn't much harder. Just push asteroids into gravitational slingshot orbits around Io or Europa and you can add or subtract angular momentum from the moon in question with each flyby. It might only take 100,000 years to park the moon around Venus.
Really: whatever's outside the universe, you cannot reach that stuff---by definition. You cannot observe it, it cannot affect you, and no matter how many Star Trek style warp/wormhole/fairy power transportation means you can dream up, it stays that way. Hell, you can't even grant that the stuff that exists outside the universe actually possesses the property of existence.
If you talk to people about this kind of trivia too long (as I have) you'll go nuts, and realize what's outside of the universe is:
So stop asking this kind of question---it's dolts like me and you who employ the philosophers and armchair physicists.
BTW, this is why the X-prize will need to have a follow-up contest (Y-prize?) to really open up space: the X-prize teams are trying for altitude, and then falling right back down. They aren't achieving orbit, because they aren't adding the tangental speed.
Dude, learn a little quantum mechanics; google for de Broglie. Basically, electrons aren't little billiard balls, and you can't use Newtonian mechanics to understand an electron beam. Think of an electron beam like a super-high-frequency laser--because that's what it is. BTW, solar flares and coronal mass ejections do have a noticeable effect on some asteroids, but at the distance of the asteroid belt, the flux is pretty small. An electron beam would be much more concentrated.
CARS DON'T EXPLODE!
If you've ever seen a car on fire (which happens all the time), it is obviously a very dangerous situation, but it ain't no bomb. People get this idea from movies, to the point where they never reflect upon the plausibility of the whole thing.
The only way I can think of for a car to explode is for the fuel tank to be completely demolished during a crash in such a way that none of the fuel ignites. Then, the fuel Whoooshes out into the air and achieves a good fuel/air mixture, and at just the right moment, something ignites the whole deal. The correct fuel/air mixture is the (very) hard thing to come by.
Fact is, the scenario I just presented doesn't happen much. Even those exploding trucks from about 15 years ago pretty much turned into flamethrowers, not bombs. If anyone has any references (e.g. news stories) about a single car exploding, I'll happily eat my words.
How so? IIRC, the Beagle2 had very limited scientific insturmentation.
Actually, you can logarithmically taper the elevator to make up for low tensile strength. The problem is of course, that at GEO (where the tapered elevator would be thickest) the damn elevator would be wider that North America. I don't even know if we could make that much steel without mining below the crust, but it's a pretty mental picture...
Fatal error: unmatched '[' character.
Get used to it; you're on Slashdot.
While I'll admit that the chart and graph on the page seem to support your claim, drugwarfacts.org doesn't offer any source for the data in the chart (and graph). Especially considering the title of the (nine year old) NYT article, I'll have to remain doubtful of your claim that tobacco is more addictive than heroin, but I would love to see the data from NIDA that backs up your claim.
Your next claim--that heroin is less deadly than tobacco--is even worse. The link you provided lists the total number of deaths per year for heroin and tobacco. Fair enough, since they report 430,700 tobacco deaths and 16,926 deaths due to all licit and illicit drugs. But your claim is on the danger to an individual. Here's a quote from NIDA:
This was copied from NIDA's page on Heroin. Please note that the page I linked to is on NIDA's website. See for yourself.I can't remember the last time I heard of anyone dying from a fatal overdose of nicotine--and I've known a number of chain-smokers. I think the low number of deaths due to illicit drug use means our policies work.
Your final claim concerns additives to heroin: the health concerns NIDA is referring to here are for the heroin itself--the NIDA website lists the dangers posed by the additives, and they are serious. However, the fact that the additives are dangerous does not change the fact that the heroin is dangerous, too.
I'm not against the legalization of some drugs which are currently illegal, but I am against distorting the truth. Oh yeah, and my .sig is from "The Kids in the Hall;" it doesn't mean I'm a junky.
<mumbles>I don't know why I bother, some people just cannot have their minds changed.
Wait, I missed it. Remind me; when did we sell heroin through vending machines?
So, it's not like China will be able to launch a surprise attack on their enemies with this.
Now, just for argument's sake, say China had a beef with the US; they wanted a bunch (possibly all) Americans dead. So they hurtle a bunch of rocks our way. Assume that the US wouldn't be able to do anything to divert the rocks, so that they'd hit their targets. What would happen if one of these rocks fell down? It depends on the target. If China targets a(n)...
If China mounts a full-scale attack of the US, then it will be then end of the world.
But, you might say: "The moon is strategically superior to the Earth, so the US military would be at a disadvantage." The US military will never be at a disadvantage when it can launch a thermonuclear warhead anywhere on the globe with mere minutes of notice. The US military has the hardware and the will to do this.
China will not be able to eliminate the US retailiatory capacity before it can be used; even if (big if) they could destroy the long-range bomber capacity and/or the nuclear missile silos, they'd still have to destroy the submarine fleet. They won't be able to do that, because they won't be able to find the subs.
Still, if China were dumb enough to waste the $25-35 trillion dollars it would take to build a military base on the moon, it would spark an arms race, and we'd suddenly find that the doors of space had been thrown open. Would that be good IYHO?
PS: Sorry to get so heated, but I don't think some things are appropriate to joke about.
Anyway, there isn't a rocket that is safer, more efficient and more controlled (and insturmented) than the SSME. Don't forget that, while everyone initially thought the SSME would be the component to fail, they haven't yet: although there were some close calls. The only reason these new engines are possibly not the best for all circumstances is that they're expensive--more expensive to refurbish that some disposable rockets are to build from scratch. And while they undergo a lot of shop work on the ground, they have fired for longer than any rocket in history. The SSME are extraordinarily efficient, the only reason we have SRBs is because the shuttle is so fucking heavy.
So, if we're sending up people, here's what we should do. Redesign the SSME, and mount it on a disposable booster, and put a small crew-only craft on top. Oh wait, that's the OSP.
Ok, I know I'm not the only person, but still.... Anyway, the report talks about what if... in section 6.4. It's the most interesting (aside from the board's version of the stuff in this article) section of the report. In this section, the options Columbia would have had had the managers (Ms. Ham, specifically) agreed to image the orbiter while on-orbit are discussed. There were two options for saving the crew, not zero.
Really, check out the CAIB report. It's an interesting read, and while it's long and occasionally dry and technical, you can skip around, and only read the parts that interest you. If you're an American citizen, our government paid $300,000,000 to recover debris and study the accident, so you owe it to yourself (you tax-payer, you) to read the report.
Especially read about the "safty-culture" in NASA. This article does a good job of getting the general idea across, but the CAIB report goes into much more detail. The astronauts could have, should have, and were almost saved.
PS: It wasn't in the article but it's in the CAIB report that an employee at NASA actually called the DOD and got them working on a request for imagery, only to have Ms. Ham call and rescind the order 90 minutes later.
Now, we all know that the distance between me and the Earth will decrease over time, due to gravity. Here near the surface of the Earth, we think that the Earth stands still, and I fall toward it. I might, on the other hand, say that the Earth rises up to smack me.
In physics, we split the difference, and say that the center of gravity--the weighted average of the respective positions of the Earth and myself--doesn't move, and the Earth and I both move. I'm just stating the principle that there is no preffered inertial frame of reference.
What has this to do with your post? The "reaction" to the gravity "reaching out and grabbing" is the "puller" moving toward the "pullee."
Wow, someone in this discussion actually made an insightful comment. And me with no points.
While I'd love to believe that Apple is soon coming out with 970 based machines, these two items in particular are the Joe Slashdot wet-dream wishlist items. Apple will go with the same drives you can get in an Xserve today, and I'd be pretty surprised if the jumped on board PCI-X. The fact is, someone not related to Apple just sat at their keyboard, and tried to make a spec which seemed believable yet got all the Joe Slashdot Apple fanboys hot-and-bothered.
Furthermore, as I'm sure has been mentioned before, this is absolutely not how Apple's marketing engine works. They keep the upcoming hardware stricktly under wraps to discourage the wait-until-the-next-machine-comes-out mentality. They are a profitable company, and they'd like to keep it that way. The way for them to do this is to entice you to buy a machine today.
Specifically:
Unlike the G4, where the AltiVec unit is integrated rather nicely into the issue unit, and can issue several types of vector instructions in parallel, the 970 can only do a permute in parallel with another instruction. Hence, for some tasks, I would expect the G4 to be almost twice as fast as a similarly clocked 970.
They make a similar claim about the non-AltiVec speed, which I tend to believe. The compiler has to be a little smarter (but Apple did add a bunch of G4 optimizations to gcc anyway), but the 970 can do more per clock the the G4 can, under many circumstances. Not only can it have more instructions in-flight, but it has a much more advanced reordering unit than the G4.
Oh yeah, and when did /. just copy over Apple rumor stories? </obligatory>
No wonder Macs are such a niche market; the seats are alive!
It's disgusting--the leftists aren't even trying to hide their motives. These leftists don't admit to supporting terrorists, even though they support Palestine for trying to invade Israel as well as spread lies about US aid to bin Laden and Iraq. Further, the terrorists support the leftists for breaking down the solidarity of the United States.
Let's face it: we need to stand together now--just as the world stands with us--more than any time since WWII.
The United States will usher in a new era of peace and democracy in the Middle East, and for the first time, the bloodthirsty factions of the terrorist state of Iraq will be forced to join the modern, Western world. Some say this war is about oil, and I say, don't we deserve some cheap oil as a reward for liberating an oppressed people? After all, liberation is what this war is all about. But what can we do to help?
We can show our support for our Military personnel, our Military Leadership, our wise (legally elected, thank you Michael Moore) Civilian Leadership, God, our Country, and this war. Show your support by correcting those coworkers, family members and classmates who speak out against the war. Tell them why they should support the war. Remind them of the price traitors pay.
Fear not, for the United States will always prevail!
(Moderators: If you disagree with what I've said, Mod it up as 'Funny', because if what I've said ain't funny, then I'm going to have to go into a corner and cry. If you haven't figured it out, this means I was being sarcastic. If you think I'm not aware of the score of factual errors I've written down, you're an idiot.)
Yes. You simply have to setup some hardware to monitor the amount of time the encryption hardware spends verifying the discs. Then, you try to reverse engineer the particular algorithms they use in the hardware. This isn't as bad as it seems: there's only a finite number of known ways to accomplish something like RSA (or ElGamal, or AES (but I don't think the Xbox uses AES)). This paper might serve as a guide, but you'd likely have to perform simmilar analysis to what the paper's authors did.
Once you did it though, I expect that you could have the key in a day or two. Once again, we are taught that the weakness isn't in the math, it's in the implementation.
This article really should be "A dozen or so things about a half dozen pieces of Mac OS software a geek thinks are cool." Most of his points are valid, but overstated. However, I do disagree with one thing: in the finder (Classic and X) when you drag a file, it does not at first highlight the window that it is in. It's not until you draw that file over another window does the other window get highlighted. Okay, so far so good. However, when you drag the item back to its original location, the originating window gets highlighted. I don't think this is optimal behaviour, but the author of this little web page goes to lengths to point this fact out! If you're going to highlight a window, always do it or never do it.