Only one problem with the whole shell idea. If it is a spherical shell, with uniform density, anyone inside it will fell a net force, due to gravity, of zero. If you get bored enough it ends up being an integral of the force of gravity as the distance from each "piece" of the shell to the "object" changes. It's been long enough since I played with it that I'd hate to have to try to re-create it, but the end result is that, no matter where you are in the shell, the shell will exert a net gravitation force on you of zero. So, any poor sap trying to walk on the inside would quickly find himself falling towards the Sun, e.g. the only significat gravitational force.
Did you hear that whooshing sound? That was the sarcasm passing over your head.
Of course GTA doesn't train you for anything beyond playing more GTA. Neither does Doom, UT, or CS. I'm willing to bet that cops would love it if, when engaged in a shoot-out with a criminal, that criminal would try bunny-hopping around in the open. The only time that might have every worked, even shortly, was during the bank robbery in North Hollywood a few years back when the robbers were wearing body armor. And that worked right up until the cops got something a bit more powerful than the low velocity pistols they use. Because of that incident, all of the cops in California, which I have seen, now have an AR-15 in their car, next to their shotgun. A bunny-hopping idiot in kevlar isn't going to last long.
Anyone who thinks that their time in front of a computer is going to help them in a real fight, is sorely mistaken. If someone has never shot a gun before, I suggest they go give it a shot. You may be able to bullseye some guy in the head all the way across the map in CS with the Desert Eagle. You'll find that hitting a 3 inch circle outside 30 yards takes a lot of practice with that gun, in real life.
Ahh, wonderful, prove him right. Honestly, gamers should be doing everything they can to keep this guy from getting harmed by some idiot with an axe to grind. If someone murdered Thompson the media, and every other nut like Thompson (remember, he's not alone in his beliefs) would use it as proof of their point, and they would play it to the hilt. Right now, Thompson's continued descent into idiocy is the best thing going for gamers. He needs to be given the tallest soapbox, and the loudest bullhorn possible. Then, when his web of lies and stupidity comes unraveled it will be all the more visible and obvious. Once he goes down hard in the media and public opinion, no one will be able to make similar arguments without being compared to Thompson.
It goes back to the old saying, "give him enough rope to hang himself by." Thompson needs to stay in the spotlight so that when he falls, and he's going to, it's obvious and visible.
Yes, size does matter, this is why I still use an original GBA. The SP was just too damn small for my hands. The DS seemed a bit silly, and so I never went that route, and this Micro? Sounds like carpel tunnel in a shinny plastic case. Honestly, I like having a bigger portable system, it's easier for me to hold onto. And, after having dropped in one of the Afterburner kits for it, the screen is plenty bright enough.
Try using VMWare for this. Or even MS's virtual server software. You can host as many instances of the OS as needed (obvious memory and CPU limits not withstanding) and when you screw one up beyond belief, just jump back to a previous snapshot.
This is how I do my testing on my work PC. I have a virtual machine with XP installed and snapshots at three different states:
XP, drivers, Daemon Tools, Symantec Antivirus and domain membership
The above plus ArcGIS 9.0
The stuff in the first setup, plus ArcGIS 9.1
Anytime I want to test an update or just see how a program gets along, I start the VM install the desired program and then poke around to see if anything broke. Once I'm done, I revert to the clean snapshot.
I also use a VM as a development server. Since I often end up writing small web applications for various functions I use a VM as an IIS/ASP.NET server to develop against. That way, no matter how bad I screw up, and I often do (I am by no means a programmer), I don't kill a real server.
Bah! You're not a member of a major media conglomerate, therefore any music you make is, by default, illegal and should be deleted. How dare you even consider doing something which isn't mandated by the great and wonderful RIAA.
I was actually thinking along these same lines. Assuming that the program does nothing more than uninstall P2P apps, and flag media files as needing to be looked at, it might be nice to have it run periodically on all the machines I have to take care of. Better yet would be if it was something I could have run in the background on startup and/or a schedule and send a report of what it finds on machines, preferrably via email. I could then keep the machines a bit cleaner.
That said, the other option for getting rid a some of the P2P problems, in a work environment, is to lock the router down. Close all ports except those needed for web and ftp. Of course, some P2P apps will operate through port 80, so you'd have to monitor traffic as well. Though, this should cut down quite a bit on the problems.
The downside to this program is, of course, I really have no clue what it's going to do on a system. For all I know it could be a malicious trojan which will blow up a system. Sure, they say that it doesn't report back or do anything nasty, but I see no reason to belive them. Afterall, this is the same group that wanted a law absolving them of all responsibility for trashing a system they thought might have illegaly copied files on it. Though, when I get some time, I may actually download this and run it in a test environment and see what it tries to do.
there is no apparent reason to believe this to be the case and the model doesn't predict it.
What I was trying to point out is that, given the data we have, there is a reason to belive it exists. Yes, the data is not as clean, and leaves a lot to be desired, but, it's not just made up numbers. The fact that such a cycle doesn't show up in models is not proof of non-existance. If anything, if a model fails to follow data which was collected, it would make me question the model more than it would make me question the data. Models are only as good as the assumptions they make, and should always be tested against a data set not used in thier creation. The problem seems to be that, we don't have enough really good data to do this with. So, we're either forced to look at data which isn't as good as we would like, or we're stuck playing with unverifiable models.
Here that trend was an increasing frequency of intense hurricanes, given an increase in CO2 concentration and an increase in ocean temperatures, which is what has been observed over the last 30 years.
Herein lies a problem. We know for a fact that the Earth has cycles which progress on the order of 10's of thousands of years. (e.g. The Earth's natural wobble, changes in our obit about the sun, etc.) Yet, the study mentioned tries to use 30 years of data to produce a trend. Heck, even in the study they admit that this is a possibility, though they hand wave it away as something that they've not noticed before.
We deliberately limited this study to the satellite era because of the known biases before this period (28), which means that a comprehensive analysis of longer-period oscillations and trends has not been attempted.There is evidence of a minimum of intense cyclones occurring in the 1970s (11), which could indicate that our observed trend toward more intense cyclones is a reflection of a long-period oscillation. However, the sustained increase over a period of 30 years in the proportion of category 4 and 5 hurricanes indicates that the related oscillation would have to be on a period substantially longer than that observed in previous studies.
So, it might be a natural cycle, and there is evidence, which we deliberatly ignored, which might support this. However, we've not noticed anything before so we aren't going to ignore it.
So, that said, I would say that it should be vaild to look at thier study in the context of the longer record. Yes, the data is not as clean, that does not mean it is not useful for examining long term trends. Consider for a moment how global warming is portrayed in the Wikipedia link you provided. It appends data from both satellites and ground stations before satellites existed. Along with that must be accepted the non-uniform and spotty coverage inherent in that system. Yet, this does not seem to slow down the use of this data, nor should it. It's the best we have to work with. And, short of waiting around for another 100 years or so to collect good data, we don't have any other way to deal with it.
I'll admit, the source is questionable, though they do explain where their data comes from, in this case the National Hurricane Center. Unless someone wants to point out a flaw in their graph where they mis-graphed the data (either intentionally or through error) that piece at least seems sound. And, given that the conclusions drawn in the article seem to come from that graph (e.g. that the current trend in hurricanes/tropical cyclones may be cyclical) I see no reason to dismiss their statements out of hand.
I agree, one should always look at the source of information before accepting it as definate, but that doesn't mean that you can simply discard all conclusions from a source, without looking at how they were arrived at. No matter how slanted an organization is, if it presents proper evidence with a good methodology behind it, it should still be considered vaild..
I have seen articles in quite a few papers, as well as reports on the BBC, CBC, and NPR all stating that the number of cat 4 and 5 hurricanes has nearly doubled in the last 30 years due to rising water temperatures.
I realize it's a bit passe but you might try reading the second article linked to in the blurb for a good refutation for that. As seems to be the case very often, those pushing the global warming stuff seem to pick time periods for their studies based on what will disinclude data which might point to a natural cycle.
In the linked article, they show the data for the previous 25 years as well as the data from the last 30. Unsuprisingly, when the data from the previous 25 years is graphed next to the data from the last 30, the graph looks a lot more like a snapshot from a long cycle than it does a trend.
That's the reason I picked my current ISP. I want to run my own mail server.
<shamless plug> DSL Extreme
(Don't work for them, just really like their service)
</shameless plug>
Keeps port 25 outbound blocked by default, but by just going through a few clicks on their site you can have it unblocked. If they notice a large amount of traffic from you on port 25 they will turn it off again and ask you to explain yourself.
This is really the way it should work, give me a pipe and let me put whatever I want through it, it's not like it makes a difference for the ISP, as long as the amount of traffic is not outragous. If you want to have some extra protection sitting there for the less computer savvy, fine, just let me remove it if I know enough to not be a problem.
Given that all I have to go by is the article from yahoo, perhaps this isn't as bad as it seems.
...simply automaticly stating that this will immediately begin a big brother age like some people here would be a bit much.
Perhpas it is a bit reactionary, though given that govenments rarely give up a power once they have been granted it, I find it is usually best to look at the worst case scenario when considering a government request for an extension of its powers. Is Big Brother a necessary conclusion with this extension? No, but it is a posibillity and one that should be well addressed before the people allow this sort of thing.
Since you are closer to the issue than me (I'm in California, USA) have they addressed how they plan to track access to this information and provide accountability for misuse? This is just a database afterall, it should be possible to log every time data is accessed, by whom, and what they saw. Will that log (or at least the who looked up information on what people) be available for public scrutiny? Will people be able to check all data stored on them and correct it if it is in error?
This just seems like a power with the potential for large problems down the road. Yes, it might save some lives now, but if it is abused it could lead to more suffering later.
secondly; arguments that this will mean that in 20 years everyone will be permanently tracked is a fallacy.
I'd like to see an argument supporting this statement. From the article:
Beginning Jan. 1, 2007, all citizens will be tracked from cradle to grave in a single database -- including health, education, family and police records
Perhaps my reading comprehension is failing me but it would seem that, far from being a fallacy, the argument that everyone will be tracked permanently, is exactly what this databse is designed to do. I don't think anyone is claiming that it is going to be used to keep a posisiton and log on everyone every second of every day; however, with just a few additions to what was mentioned, this could be a very scary thing indeed.
Consider for a moment if one was to attach political afiliations and known associates to this data. You could then create a map of people, which would allow an unscrupulious person and/or group to persecute a group of people based on beliefs, and have an easy time doing it.
As for the claim that there are privacy safeguards and that no person will have access to all of the data at once, what is enforcing that exactly? A government promise? I would hope that people would realize by now that a promise from a government that it will "be good" isn't worth jack. All it takes is a few people who do want to abuse a system for it to be abused.
This systems is the first step to an Orwellian nightmare, and people are not only accepting it, they are supporting and defending it.
Sex sells. Always has and always will. Is it right, good, <insert moral term here>? Who cares? These companies are in it to make money, that is why companies exist. As long as they continue to make a profit following the same formula, they will. And until young males are no longer willing to throw money at a set of tits, it will continue to make money.
As for capturing the rest of the market (read:female gamers) enough of them are willing to just ignore the portrayal of women as sex objects in games that companies aren't interested in changing. They are more afraid of not getting the young male gamer sale (the largest gaming demographic currently) than losing some female gamers. Again, feel free to rant in rightous indignation, you're probably justified. However, don't expect it to change much, the world runs on money not morals. And yes, they might get more sales by going the high route, but then, they might not. Right now they have a market they can count on, which provides a fairly steady revenue stream, they are not going to take a risk. Catch-22? You betcha! That's still not going to stop them from doing it.
All that said, I think even today we are starting to see a shift in gaming. Games are starting to come out, without the cliche chainmail bikini. It is still there in some games, but we are getting games where it doesn't exists. And this is how I expect it to be. We will always have those games which cater to the young, sex-crazed, males. But I think we will aslo see games made which don't. Though, as long as games are on computers, expect patches to be made which add that content to any game. I expect that the non-overtly sexual games will come about via growth in the gaming industry, not via direct change.
Actually, the one change I would love to see (hear) happen in games, is for female characters to stop being voiced by aspiring porn actresses. Along with this, writters drawn from the porn industry should also be gotten rid of. For example, in Baldur's Gate 2 for the PS2 you come across a female vampie in a g-string. Ok, fine standard cliche as little clothes as possible, we can ignore that. Then she starts talking about a "bloodvine". Which should be a basic "go get an item" quest. The problem is that the voice actor, and the script she was given make one realize that this vampiress isn't interested in the "bloodvine" so much as she is a good fucking. And then when she gets her bloodvine she has an orgasm eating it. I'll admit to being as much a sex crazed male as the rest of them, but this was just over the top. Here I am trying to save the world, kill evil, collect treasure, yada yada; and I have to stop and watch while this vampiress gets herself off sucking on a bloodvine. I don't need a gratuitious sex scene in the middle of my quest to kill evil. If I wanted that, I'd load up a hentai game.
One thing to always keep in mind when watching Budweiser commercials. Those clydesdale horses aren't just their mascots, they are their production facility.
Sorry, wrote that while I was still trying to get my first cup of coffee (Don't you love getting accosted before you get to your desk?). Though, the ideas should work, in general. A Windows box is just inherently permissive, with a toggle switch to sort of locked down. I do seem to recall that some software is smart enough to ask for an administrator account to install, if the user is a limited account in XP, but I think this is something done by the creator of the installer, and not by XP itself.
Honestly, the more I work with Windows, the less I see it as a viable option for average users. I'm not saying that Linux is some panacea for the home user problems, nor is a Mac. However, both Linux and Mac seem to be better oriented towards keeping a box safe, and for a home user who does little more than surf the web and run one or two applications, it may be the better way to go. Maybe, eventually, either of those will be the best way to go for gaming, but at the moment, Windows still seems to have that locked up out of inertia. Wine is great, but I would rather not jump through hoops just to get a new game running. I would love to see a Linux client for games become a normal occuance, not a notable exception.
Heck, I don't even think kids are going to have to pay that much.
Get modchip for whatever system you are using
Given the shift of consoles more towards computers this may eventually be just a software hack
Install modchip
Download copy of game from your preferred P2P network
Burn and play restricted game
???
Profit!!!
Though I doubt that even this much trouble will be expended in most cases. Usually little Timmy will just ask his parents for a copy of "Whore Fucking and Killing 12", and they will ignore both the title and boxart while buying it.
The other problem I have with laws like this is, it's basically telling parents it's OK to abandon their responsibility. Why should the parent bother when the government will watch over the kids for them? Maybe Aldous Huxley was right, A Brave New World is comming, and parents are going to not only let the government take their kids, the parents are going to drive them down to the collection center.
Now, where's my Soma, dammit!
Honestly, on a Windows box, you're pretty well screwed. Under a limited account, some apps are smart enough to ask for an administrator account to do it as, but that may not be the case with what she wants to install.
You're better off switching her over to a Mac, assuming that the program, or an equivilent, exists for Mac. From what little support experience I have had with one, you have an install password to put something on there, so it limits the ability of viruses, etc. to get in (I support a dozen windows servers and about 75 desktops. I've only recently had to do any support on a Mac, so take my word with a huge grain of salt). Though, a user who is able to install software is still a user able to install malware, so you would still want to check in from time to time.
And, because this is slashdot, have you considered switching her over to the almighty Linux?
Wow, learn something new everyday, thank you.
As for the spark plug hitting you, ya it's a hell of a jolt. Never let your finger get to the metal part of the pliers while balance testing and engine, it's fun once, but I'd never do it on purpose.
2. It's a cheap power supply that doesn't detect, and you get 12 volt on the outside of the case. Oooh, wow. Ever grab both terminals on a car battery? Try it some time. You won't feel a thing.
Yes, but put one finger on the positive side of the coil (the 12V input), lick your other finger and put it on the negative terminal of the battery. You get a nice tingling sensation, also you now know that the circuit between the positive terminal of the battery and the coil is good.
<Threadjack>
Yes, those straps are worthless, you've got enough metal in the case, which you are going to be touching enough to keep you grounded, unles you are doing something dumb like working on a dry carpet in sneakers and shuffling your feet.
As for Mr. The PSU Will Kill You; come off it, that PSU would either have to modified to hell and back, or god just has it in for you. Besides which, isn't the first thing, most of us do when working on the innards of a computer, especially the farking power supply, is unplug the computer! If you're yanking a video card, or your screwed up power supply, you should really have the computer unplugged from the wall. I've never blown a card via static electricity; I have, however, blown a card by poping it out of it's socket while the system was running. (Not my fault, honestly, the jerk off who'd worked on the system before me didn't secure the cards, so when I plugged a cable in, I pushed it just wrong and poped the card out)
On a corporate network? No, bugger off!
Now that you know where you are starting, why do you want said application? Is it for work related purposes? Has it been requested/approved by your manager?
If you can get through those questions without resorting to hazy answers, then IT should look at it and determine if it's safe to run on the network. If it is, Then they can install it and white list it. Otherwise, as said before: No, bugger off!
How do you propose to build levies that can withstand the impact from shipping and oil rigs that break free of their moorings?
You don't. You plan on a collapse and build flood channels to carry the water away from areas which will create a problem. Sometimes, the best way to deal with a catastrophic failure is to build in mechanisms for dealing with the results of said failure.
The other option is a staged failure mechanism. Build a layered levee, with the expectation that the first couple of layers will be breached, but as debirs build up in the breach area, it will slow and/or, stop other incomming objects which would cause a further breach.
The situation can be dealt with, the governemt of Lousiana and New Orleans failed to do so, and now we have a destroyed city and many dead. This type of scenario had been predicted years ago, the problem was just not dealt with as it should have been.
I think that this sort of thing is common in communities where a natural disaster is faced regularly, and the people are smart enough and have enough resources to do something about it.
For example, a few years back a string of earthquakes went around the ring of fire (e.g. Pacific Plate boundry), as they tend to do. India was hit with about a 7.0 quake, followed shortly by Mexico, and then California. In both India and Mexico, they had hundreds of thousands dead, because the buildings collapsed, and the infrastructure broke down. In California, we had a few broken dishes. The difference is all in preperation and planning. California has some strict construction codes due to earthquakes, the areas of India and Mexico, which were hit, did not.
Places which face a certain natural disaster need to deal with them before hand. As we have been finding out, New Orleans knew about the problem with the levee, knew that a hurricane could cause a collapse, and knew they they were in an area hurricanes tend to hit; so, why wasn't anything done? The people of New Orleans should be looking at their elected representatives and themselves to blame. This exact scenraio was a known possibility years ago, yet it was never dealt with. A lot of people have died, because of inaction.
Slashdot Mirror
Only one problem with the whole shell idea. If it is a spherical shell, with uniform density, anyone inside it will fell a net force, due to gravity, of zero. If you get bored enough it ends up being an integral of the force of gravity as the distance from each "piece" of the shell to the "object" changes. It's been long enough since I played with it that I'd hate to have to try to re-create it, but the end result is that, no matter where you are in the shell, the shell will exert a net gravitation force on you of zero. So, any poor sap trying to walk on the inside would quickly find himself falling towards the Sun, e.g. the only significat gravitational force.
Did you hear that whooshing sound? That was the sarcasm passing over your head.
Of course GTA doesn't train you for anything beyond playing more GTA. Neither does Doom, UT, or CS. I'm willing to bet that cops would love it if, when engaged in a shoot-out with a criminal, that criminal would try bunny-hopping around in the open. The only time that might have every worked, even shortly, was during the bank robbery in North Hollywood a few years back when the robbers were wearing body armor. And that worked right up until the cops got something a bit more powerful than the low velocity pistols they use. Because of that incident, all of the cops in California, which I have seen, now have an AR-15 in their car, next to their shotgun. A bunny-hopping idiot in kevlar isn't going to last long.
Anyone who thinks that their time in front of a computer is going to help them in a real fight, is sorely mistaken. If someone has never shot a gun before, I suggest they go give it a shot. You may be able to bullseye some guy in the head all the way across the map in CS with the Desert Eagle. You'll find that hitting a 3 inch circle outside 30 yards takes a lot of practice with that gun, in real life.
Ahh, wonderful, prove him right. Honestly, gamers should be doing everything they can to keep this guy from getting harmed by some idiot with an axe to grind. If someone murdered Thompson the media, and every other nut like Thompson (remember, he's not alone in his beliefs) would use it as proof of their point, and they would play it to the hilt. Right now, Thompson's continued descent into idiocy is the best thing going for gamers. He needs to be given the tallest soapbox, and the loudest bullhorn possible. Then, when his web of lies and stupidity comes unraveled it will be all the more visible and obvious. Once he goes down hard in the media and public opinion, no one will be able to make similar arguments without being compared to Thompson.
It goes back to the old saying, "give him enough rope to hang himself by." Thompson needs to stay in the spotlight so that when he falls, and he's going to, it's obvious and visible.
Yes, size does matter, this is why I still use an original GBA. The SP was just too damn small for my hands. The DS seemed a bit silly, and so I never went that route, and this Micro? Sounds like carpel tunnel in a shinny plastic case. Honestly, I like having a bigger portable system, it's easier for me to hold onto. And, after having dropped in one of the Afterburner kits for it, the screen is plenty bright enough.
This is how I do my testing on my work PC. I have a virtual machine with XP installed and snapshots at three different states:
- XP, drivers, Daemon Tools, Symantec Antivirus and domain membership
- The above plus ArcGIS 9.0
- The stuff in the first setup, plus ArcGIS 9.1
Anytime I want to test an update or just see how a program gets along, I start the VM install the desired program and then poke around to see if anything broke. Once I'm done, I revert to the clean snapshot.I also use a VM as a development server. Since I often end up writing small web applications for various functions I use a VM as an IIS/ASP.NET server to develop against. That way, no matter how bad I screw up, and I often do (I am by no means a programmer), I don't kill a real server.
The US is basically trying to do, with economics and coersion, what the Romans did by military force: build an empire.
Bah! You're not a member of a major media conglomerate, therefore any music you make is, by default, illegal and should be deleted. How dare you even consider doing something which isn't mandated by the great and wonderful RIAA.
I was actually thinking along these same lines. Assuming that the program does nothing more than uninstall P2P apps, and flag media files as needing to be looked at, it might be nice to have it run periodically on all the machines I have to take care of. Better yet would be if it was something I could have run in the background on startup and/or a schedule and send a report of what it finds on machines, preferrably via email. I could then keep the machines a bit cleaner.
That said, the other option for getting rid a some of the P2P problems, in a work environment, is to lock the router down. Close all ports except those needed for web and ftp. Of course, some P2P apps will operate through port 80, so you'd have to monitor traffic as well. Though, this should cut down quite a bit on the problems.
The downside to this program is, of course, I really have no clue what it's going to do on a system. For all I know it could be a malicious trojan which will blow up a system. Sure, they say that it doesn't report back or do anything nasty, but I see no reason to belive them. Afterall, this is the same group that wanted a law absolving them of all responsibility for trashing a system they thought might have illegaly copied files on it. Though, when I get some time, I may actually download this and run it in a test environment and see what it tries to do.
there is no apparent reason to believe this to be the case and the model doesn't predict it.
What I was trying to point out is that, given the data we have, there is a reason to belive it exists. Yes, the data is not as clean, and leaves a lot to be desired, but, it's not just made up numbers. The fact that such a cycle doesn't show up in models is not proof of non-existance. If anything, if a model fails to follow data which was collected, it would make me question the model more than it would make me question the data. Models are only as good as the assumptions they make, and should always be tested against a data set not used in thier creation. The problem seems to be that, we don't have enough really good data to do this with. So, we're either forced to look at data which isn't as good as we would like, or we're stuck playing with unverifiable models.
Here that trend was an increasing frequency of intense hurricanes, given an increase in CO2 concentration and an increase in ocean temperatures, which is what has been observed over the last 30 years.
Herein lies a problem. We know for a fact that the Earth has cycles which progress on the order of 10's of thousands of years. (e.g. The Earth's natural wobble, changes in our obit about the sun, etc.) Yet, the study mentioned tries to use 30 years of data to produce a trend. Heck, even in the study they admit that this is a possibility, though they hand wave it away as something that they've not noticed before.
We deliberately limited this study to the satellite era because of the known biases before this period (28), which means that a comprehensive analysis of longer-period oscillations and trends has not been attempted. There is evidence of a minimum of intense cyclones occurring in the 1970s (11), which could indicate that our observed trend toward more intense cyclones is a reflection of a long-period oscillation. However, the sustained increase over a period of 30 years in the proportion of category 4 and 5 hurricanes indicates that the related oscillation would have to be on a period substantially longer than that observed in previous studies.
So, it might be a natural cycle, and there is evidence, which we deliberatly ignored, which might support this. However, we've not noticed anything before so we aren't going to ignore it.
So, that said, I would say that it should be vaild to look at thier study in the context of the longer record. Yes, the data is not as clean, that does not mean it is not useful for examining long term trends. Consider for a moment how global warming is portrayed in the Wikipedia link you provided. It appends data from both satellites and ground stations before satellites existed. Along with that must be accepted the non-uniform and spotty coverage inherent in that system. Yet, this does not seem to slow down the use of this data, nor should it. It's the best we have to work with. And, short of waiting around for another 100 years or so to collect good data, we don't have any other way to deal with it.
I'll admit, the source is questionable, though they do explain where their data comes from, in this case the National Hurricane Center. Unless someone wants to point out a flaw in their graph where they mis-graphed the data (either intentionally or through error) that piece at least seems sound. And, given that the conclusions drawn in the article seem to come from that graph (e.g. that the current trend in hurricanes/tropical cyclones may be cyclical) I see no reason to dismiss their statements out of hand.
I agree, one should always look at the source of information before accepting it as definate, but that doesn't mean that you can simply discard all conclusions from a source, without looking at how they were arrived at. No matter how slanted an organization is, if it presents proper evidence with a good methodology behind it, it should still be considered vaild..
I have seen articles in quite a few papers, as well as reports on the BBC, CBC, and NPR all stating that the number of cat 4 and 5 hurricanes has nearly doubled in the last 30 years due to rising water temperatures.
I realize it's a bit passe but you might try reading the second article linked to in the blurb for a good refutation for that. As seems to be the case very often, those pushing the global warming stuff seem to pick time periods for their studies based on what will disinclude data which might point to a natural cycle.
In the linked article, they show the data for the previous 25 years as well as the data from the last 30. Unsuprisingly, when the data from the previous 25 years is graphed next to the data from the last 30, the graph looks a lot more like a snapshot from a long cycle than it does a trend.
That's the reason I picked my current ISP. I want to run my own mail server.
<shamless plug>
DSL Extreme
(Don't work for them, just really like their service)
</shameless plug>
Keeps port 25 outbound blocked by default, but by just going through a few clicks on their site you can have it unblocked. If they notice a large amount of traffic from you on port 25 they will turn it off again and ask you to explain yourself.
This is really the way it should work, give me a pipe and let me put whatever I want through it, it's not like it makes a difference for the ISP, as long as the amount of traffic is not outragous. If you want to have some extra protection sitting there for the less computer savvy, fine, just let me remove it if I know enough to not be a problem.
Given that all I have to go by is the article from yahoo, perhaps this isn't as bad as it seems.
...simply automaticly stating that this will immediately begin a big brother age like some people here would be a bit much.
Perhpas it is a bit reactionary, though given that govenments rarely give up a power once they have been granted it, I find it is usually best to look at the worst case scenario when considering a government request for an extension of its powers. Is Big Brother a necessary conclusion with this extension? No, but it is a posibillity and one that should be well addressed before the people allow this sort of thing.
Since you are closer to the issue than me (I'm in California, USA) have they addressed how they plan to track access to this information and provide accountability for misuse? This is just a database afterall, it should be possible to log every time data is accessed, by whom, and what they saw. Will that log (or at least the who looked up information on what people) be available for public scrutiny? Will people be able to check all data stored on them and correct it if it is in error?
This just seems like a power with the potential for large problems down the road. Yes, it might save some lives now, but if it is abused it could lead to more suffering later.
secondly; arguments that this will mean that in 20 years everyone will be permanently tracked is a fallacy.
I'd like to see an argument supporting this statement. From the article:
Beginning Jan. 1, 2007, all citizens will be tracked from cradle to grave in a single database -- including health, education, family and police records
Perhaps my reading comprehension is failing me but it would seem that, far from being a fallacy, the argument that everyone will be tracked permanently, is exactly what this databse is designed to do. I don't think anyone is claiming that it is going to be used to keep a posisiton and log on everyone every second of every day; however, with just a few additions to what was mentioned, this could be a very scary thing indeed.
Consider for a moment if one was to attach political afiliations and known associates to this data. You could then create a map of people, which would allow an unscrupulious person and/or group to persecute a group of people based on beliefs, and have an easy time doing it.
As for the claim that there are privacy safeguards and that no person will have access to all of the data at once, what is enforcing that exactly? A government promise? I would hope that people would realize by now that a promise from a government that it will "be good" isn't worth jack. All it takes is a few people who do want to abuse a system for it to be abused.
This systems is the first step to an Orwellian nightmare, and people are not only accepting it, they are supporting and defending it.
Sex sells. Always has and always will. Is it right, good, <insert moral term here>? Who cares? These companies are in it to make money, that is why companies exist. As long as they continue to make a profit following the same formula, they will. And until young males are no longer willing to throw money at a set of tits, it will continue to make money.
As for capturing the rest of the market (read:female gamers) enough of them are willing to just ignore the portrayal of women as sex objects in games that companies aren't interested in changing. They are more afraid of not getting the young male gamer sale (the largest gaming demographic currently) than losing some female gamers. Again, feel free to rant in rightous indignation, you're probably justified. However, don't expect it to change much, the world runs on money not morals. And yes, they might get more sales by going the high route, but then, they might not. Right now they have a market they can count on, which provides a fairly steady revenue stream, they are not going to take a risk. Catch-22? You betcha! That's still not going to stop them from doing it.
All that said, I think even today we are starting to see a shift in gaming. Games are starting to come out, without the cliche chainmail bikini. It is still there in some games, but we are getting games where it doesn't exists. And this is how I expect it to be. We will always have those games which cater to the young, sex-crazed, males. But I think we will aslo see games made which don't. Though, as long as games are on computers, expect patches to be made which add that content to any game. I expect that the non-overtly sexual games will come about via growth in the gaming industry, not via direct change.
Actually, the one change I would love to see (hear) happen in games, is for female characters to stop being voiced by aspiring porn actresses. Along with this, writters drawn from the porn industry should also be gotten rid of. For example, in Baldur's Gate 2 for the PS2 you come across a female vampie in a g-string. Ok, fine standard cliche as little clothes as possible, we can ignore that. Then she starts talking about a "bloodvine". Which should be a basic "go get an item" quest. The problem is that the voice actor, and the script she was given make one realize that this vampiress isn't interested in the "bloodvine" so much as she is a good fucking. And then when she gets her bloodvine she has an orgasm eating it. I'll admit to being as much a sex crazed male as the rest of them, but this was just over the top. Here I am trying to save the world, kill evil, collect treasure, yada yada; and I have to stop and watch while this vampiress gets herself off sucking on a bloodvine. I don't need a gratuitious sex scene in the middle of my quest to kill evil. If I wanted that, I'd load up a hentai game.
Sorry, wrote that while I was still trying to get my first cup of coffee (Don't you love getting accosted before you get to your desk?). Though, the ideas should work, in general. A Windows box is just inherently permissive, with a toggle switch to sort of locked down. I do seem to recall that some software is smart enough to ask for an administrator account to install, if the user is a limited account in XP, but I think this is something done by the creator of the installer, and not by XP itself.
Honestly, the more I work with Windows, the less I see it as a viable option for average users. I'm not saying that Linux is some panacea for the home user problems, nor is a Mac. However, both Linux and Mac seem to be better oriented towards keeping a box safe, and for a home user who does little more than surf the web and run one or two applications, it may be the better way to go. Maybe, eventually, either of those will be the best way to go for gaming, but at the moment, Windows still seems to have that locked up out of inertia. Wine is great, but I would rather not jump through hoops just to get a new game running. I would love to see a Linux client for games become a normal occuance, not a notable exception.
- Get modchip for whatever system you are using
- Given the shift of consoles more towards computers this may eventually be just a software hack
- Install modchip
- Download copy of game from your preferred P2P network
- Burn and play restricted game
- ???
- Profit!!!
Though I doubt that even this much trouble will be expended in most cases. Usually little Timmy will just ask his parents for a copy of "Whore Fucking and Killing 12", and they will ignore both the title and boxart while buying it.The other problem I have with laws like this is, it's basically telling parents it's OK to abandon their responsibility. Why should the parent bother when the government will watch over the kids for them? Maybe Aldous Huxley was right, A Brave New World is comming, and parents are going to not only let the government take their kids, the parents are going to drive them down to the collection center.
Now, where's my Soma, dammit!
Honestly, on a Windows box, you're pretty well screwed. Under a limited account, some apps are smart enough to ask for an administrator account to do it as, but that may not be the case with what she wants to install.
You're better off switching her over to a Mac, assuming that the program, or an equivilent, exists for Mac. From what little support experience I have had with one, you have an install password to put something on there, so it limits the ability of viruses, etc. to get in (I support a dozen windows servers and about 75 desktops. I've only recently had to do any support on a Mac, so take my word with a huge grain of salt). Though, a user who is able to install software is still a user able to install malware, so you would still want to check in from time to time.
And, because this is slashdot, have you considered switching her over to the almighty Linux?
Wow, learn something new everyday, thank you.
As for the spark plug hitting you, ya it's a hell of a jolt. Never let your finger get to the metal part of the pliers while balance testing and engine, it's fun once, but I'd never do it on purpose.
2. It's a cheap power supply that doesn't detect, and you get 12 volt on the outside of the case. Oooh, wow. Ever grab both terminals on a car battery? Try it some time. You won't feel a thing.
Yes, but put one finger on the positive side of the coil (the 12V input), lick your other finger and put it on the negative terminal of the battery. You get a nice tingling sensation, also you now know that the circuit between the positive terminal of the battery and the coil is good.
<Threadjack>
Yes, those straps are worthless, you've got enough metal in the case, which you are going to be touching enough to keep you grounded, unles you are doing something dumb like working on a dry carpet in sneakers and shuffling your feet.
As for Mr. The PSU Will Kill You; come off it, that PSU would either have to modified to hell and back, or god just has it in for you. Besides which, isn't the first thing, most of us do when working on the innards of a computer, especially the farking power supply, is unplug the computer! If you're yanking a video card, or your screwed up power supply, you should really have the computer unplugged from the wall. I've never blown a card via static electricity; I have, however, blown a card by poping it out of it's socket while the system was running. (Not my fault, honestly, the jerk off who'd worked on the system before me didn't secure the cards, so when I plugged a cable in, I pushed it just wrong and poped the card out)
On a corporate network? No, bugger off!
Now that you know where you are starting, why do you want said application? Is it for work related purposes? Has it been requested/approved by your manager?
If you can get through those questions without resorting to hazy answers, then IT should look at it and determine if it's safe to run on the network. If it is, Then they can install it and white list it. Otherwise, as said before: No, bugger off!
How do you propose to build levies that can withstand the impact from shipping and oil rigs that break free of their moorings?
You don't. You plan on a collapse and build flood channels to carry the water away from areas which will create a problem. Sometimes, the best way to deal with a catastrophic failure is to build in mechanisms for dealing with the results of said failure.
The other option is a staged failure mechanism. Build a layered levee, with the expectation that the first couple of layers will be breached, but as debirs build up in the breach area, it will slow and/or, stop other incomming objects which would cause a further breach.
The situation can be dealt with, the governemt of Lousiana and New Orleans failed to do so, and now we have a destroyed city and many dead. This type of scenario had been predicted years ago, the problem was just not dealt with as it should have been.
I think that this sort of thing is common in communities where a natural disaster is faced regularly, and the people are smart enough and have enough resources to do something about it.
For example, a few years back a string of earthquakes went around the ring of fire (e.g. Pacific Plate boundry), as they tend to do. India was hit with about a 7.0 quake, followed shortly by Mexico, and then California. In both India and Mexico, they had hundreds of thousands dead, because the buildings collapsed, and the infrastructure broke down. In California, we had a few broken dishes. The difference is all in preperation and planning. California has some strict construction codes due to earthquakes, the areas of India and Mexico, which were hit, did not.
Places which face a certain natural disaster need to deal with them before hand. As we have been finding out, New Orleans knew about the problem with the levee, knew that a hurricane could cause a collapse, and knew they they were in an area hurricanes tend to hit; so, why wasn't anything done? The people of New Orleans should be looking at their elected representatives and themselves to blame. This exact scenraio was a known possibility years ago, yet it was never dealt with. A lot of people have died, because of inaction.