Yeah, but think of that cute girl in the other car you see as you drive to work every day - instead of asking for her mobile number, you can just grab her network address! No more triangulating her cell signal... her car will broadcast its location to you... digital stalking made easy!
Do videogame soundtracks count? Because the Cold Storage soundtrack for WipeoutXL for the PC was awesome (and is available in its entirety in 192kbit mp3 files on their website).
That's true right now, under the protection of the BetaMax decision. But that was won by a slim margin (5-4) and the current supreme court might decide that the copyright protection for the copyright holders is more important than the fair use rights of the public. In that case, it would actually become illegal to have/use the Kazaa client. That's why this case is so important and has been so high-profile.
*places tongue firmly in cheek* Ohhh, ohhh, ohhh - I know, I know! You can hold up a photograph you took, then use the RIAA claim that a computer makes a copy of the image and stores it, then sue the USPS for copyright infringement! I like it!
Hmmmm... 1) Get kiosk to make copy of photograph 2) sue USPS for copyright infringement 3) Profit!!!
Boy, the/. formatting really takes away from the whole sex=extacy visual of that joke, doesn't it?
Re:So how is this different from
on
Dry Quicksand
·
· Score: 1
So my question is: how difficult is it to upset the balance and cause the sand to fall into a lower energy state? If this is relatively easy, then the mixture becomes useless for most military applications.
OTOH, perhaps ground resonance imaging could be foiled by this... put a 'moat' of sorts around a concrete bunker, and if someone tried to use GRI to determine the location of the bunker, the quicksand would ruin the resolution of the resulting image. (Am I thinking this through properly?)
Re:Sinking into quicksand - Bah!
on
Dry Quicksand
·
· Score: 1
Yes, *but* - 1) ever tried to run on the beach? How much easier do you think running would be with the sand at waist-length? 2) an armored personnel carrier, tank, or other vehicle displaces a whole lot more than a human being. 3) a standard military pack is a whole lot more dense than a human being, by design. It will sink a whole lot further.
This is how "balanced" TRS (Tip-Ring-Sleeve) and XLR-type audio cables are supposed to work. Much better than standard mono instrument cable, if your equipment supports it.
mutations may occur whenever a cell splits in two, not only when the animal reproduces
This is true, but don't forget that most of these mutations are completely lost right away; only those that are passed on to future generations by reproduction are able to persist.
A mutation which starts in the brain but doesn't make its way to the reproductive organs prior to procreation doesn't get passed on to any future generation.
There has been some recent research to contradict this. Our cells seems a little more willing to replace themselves than we thought. First neuroplasticity, now this... hmmm.
Also get down off your horse called 'open source is better in memory' world. I have been using firefox for a few months now. It takes nearly 4X the amount of ram that IE did.
I call bullshit. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
You only see the 1/4 memory space IE uses because the rest of it is incorporated into the OS. If core Firefox components were incorporated into Windows the way IE is, it would show less memory usage than IE does.
Now I wouldn't even say that I'm a linux user. I don't have it installed at home (though I have three distros at my fingertips should I choose to install it), but I guess I do use it a lot at work and elsewhere.
But I can put up a linux box of any flavor, attach it to the network, lock it down in minutes, and not worry about it being compromised. But when I put up a Win2k (or ME or 98 or XP) box and attach it to the network, I don't even have time to download the patches before the box has been compromised. What's more, there are some vulnerabilities which MS has decided aren't worth fixing. Now for me, Mr. Technical Home User, that's one thing, and I can deal with it. But for the Air Force? Do we really want nuclear missile defense systems multitasking as spam relays? Or DDOS zombies?
So you want to talk about using the right tool for the right task? When, in anybody's universe, has the tool for SECURITY been MICROSOFT?
Application proxy firewalls work just fine - Raptor makes an enterprise-class AP firewall that does a fantastic job. They require more resources to manage than simple stateful-inspection firewalls, but they are much more secure when managed properly.
As far as Mandatory Access Control (MAC) goes, it is even more difficult to manage than an AP firewall, and a terrible pain to implement - ever tried to make a MAC model work in an Active Directory environment? Not easy...
And even if you just choose to implement the RBAC part of a MAC model, how do you define roles? Unless you have a very stratified and well-defined role structure for the people who work in the enterprise, it is a daunting task to set up roles. In one place I worked, there were ~10,000 employees - and 4800+ job titles. Not exactly conducive to role assignment, to be sure.
OTOH, disabling writing is the best thing you can do with this if you want to have your evidence admissible in court. Anything which could tamper with the state of the drive after the user/cracker/process/etc. has finished with it can very easily make the courts (in the U.S. anyway, don't know about elsewhere) consider it contaminated evidence and therefore inadmissible.
That's why professional digital forensics kits (the worthwhile ones, that is) will actually make a bit-for-bit copy of the suspect drive without the possibility of changing a thing.
Be careful - digital forensics (just like regular forensics) is a lot harder than they make it look on TV. Google for "chain of custody" if you want to see how hard it can be...
When are they going to make one universal one that you can put an 8mb smartmedia card (or something similar) in and let you use one interface for all of them? There must be room in those big controllers to put more than one system's chip on the board... or else you could use a daughterboard design and have that interchangeable as well...
And when will they have a TI/994A one so I can finally get rid of my old cassette tapes...?
Whew, this is going to be a long one, so brace yourself...:-)
there are often major differences between official Roman Catholic doctrine and what individual RCs believe
This is technically not allowed. The 'official' Catholic doctrine is the only one Catholics are supposed to believe. Frankly, I don't agree with everything myself, but that's more on a philosophical level than a religious one. The Catholic Church is a living organization, and the doctrine does change from time to time based on the input of some of its members. (Big examples are Saints Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas - prolific writers who helped shape Church doctrine through their philosophical deductions.) Honestly, though, most Catholic doctrine is thoroughly considered by a lot of people, many of whom were much smarter and more scholarly than I. Tradition usually exists for a reason - it is generally beneficial, and a good way of passing the values of a society onto future generations who might not have the capacity to understand the environment from whence the traditions came, but can still benefit from the wisdom contained therein.
his body cannot be in more than one place at once, so now that he's in heaven, the bread and the wine in Mass, cannot possibly be of the 'real substance.'
Who says his body cannot be in more than one place at once? Where is that written? AFAIK, this is God we're talking about - who is to say what he can and cannot do?
Perhaps more to the point, it can be noted that the very appearance of Christ in more than one place, in fact the principal Biblical source from which the Catholic doctrinal article is taken, is contained in fact in the Bible. It is Catholic doctrine that Jesus was very specific, and was not inadvertantly speaking in metaphor when he said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-23, Luke 22:19-20). In this original (Last Supper) instance, He was present in what was the bread and wine as well as being physically present in the room with the Apostles - I would say that shows good prior art!
that Christ died once for all and that there is no need for any more sacrifice, surely Mass is a denial of what Christ did on the cross, and a rejection of him
It is not a redundant sacrifice. Jesus said, "Drink from this, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew, 26:27-28) For starters, I include myself in his command to "all of you". Secondly, we drink not to reenact His sacrifice, but to renew ourselves in the covenant we share with Him, the covenant he began that day with His apostles and which encompasses us all as Christians. Third, nearly all Christian denominations celebrate communion - every Baptist, Congregational, etc., church I've ever been to shared at least juice and bread in symbolic accordance with Christ's mandate to "do this in remembrance of me". So saying that the presence of Jesus' flesh and blood in the Catholic eucharist - something we believe was present at the Last Supper - is any different in practice than that of any other Christian denomination seems a little weak to me.
Or we could look at it another way - if the sharing of Christ's actual substance truly were anathema to Him, and since it is Him we ask in our prayers to institute transsubstantiation, do you think He would grant our request? I don't think so! So even if the Catholic doctrine is incorrect, and we did misinterpret Jesus' directive, we would still not be invalidating His sacrifice since the communion we share would not, in fact, be His body and blood! So please understand that our request to be in communion with Him and to share in His new covenant is an honest, humble, and faithful attempt to make the most of his sacrifice and not make a rejection of it. If you are truly interested in understanding the dogma of transsubstantiation, please read the
Linux embedded gets my juices flowing knowing I'm hacking while movies are showing typing one-handed makes me want to sing Knowing I'm doing my favorite things!
However, because of a combination of ignorance, confusion, and political intent, occurances of "God's anointed one" in the old testament are properly translated, while occurances in the new testament are translated as "Christ".
Um, you're missing something big here - the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek. "Christ" is a Greek word which never appeared in the Old Testament. The Hebrews used a word which translates to "Messiah" for references to the Savior, but uses a different word to describe Cyrus. Cyrus was never referred to as "Christ". The only "Christ" in the Bible was Jesus. Be careful when mixing languages, you'll trip yourself up.
As far as the "Jesus" thing goes, Attic Greek did have a "y" sound - IIRC annotated "i" in most modern translations. Iesu was the Romanized phonetic translation of the Greek, from whence the Franks drew "Jesu" through a consonant shift (a natural occurance in language) over 1000 years. This, when introduced into English during the reign of Charlemagne (1066+) in Britain, became the current Jesus.
It doesn't matter if I call God "God" or "Allah" or "YHWH" - the intent is the same. Jesus knows when I'm talking to him regardless of what name I use. Don't get hung up on stuff like that.
Be careful what you say; you are speaking out of turn. I am a practicing, educated Catholic, and NOTHING comes before God in the Catholic faith. Period, end of story.
I'm not sure what you're basing your statement on, or how you arrived at your conclusion, but unfortunately, as eloquently stated as it was, your premise was absolutely wrong.
The Catholic faith does not rely on scripture alone; we believe that there are people who are educated and blessed to be able to speak with authority on the interpretation of the Bible and its impact on our lives. It is very, very important to understand that this in no way supercedes the authority of the Bible.
Without having a centralized authority to determine the Bible's meanings, there is simply too much ambiguity in the fallible context of human language to force a single interpretation for all people - there will always be those who disagree about what parts of the Bible mean. Just look at the different ways Baptists, Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the same books in the Scriptures!
Yes, and no. There is a marked difference with stringed instruments between notes of the same pitch (i.e., the same Hz) which are played on different strings. This has to do with the timbre of the note.
The strings of most instruments have different diameters for each string, and all are wound differently; ainsi even at the same pitch (b#)and amplitude (volume) the sound can change.
The smaller diameter (higher pitched) strings on a violin produce fewer complex overtones, even for an identical pitch, than do the larger diameter strings. Therefore an A# elicited from the E string will have a more "pure" sound than that from the A string.
I believe this is what our synaesthetic friend was alluding to.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and in Korea, only old people use email!
...
...what?
oh, yeah, shoot.
Yeah, but think of that cute girl in the other car you see as you drive to work every day - instead of asking for her mobile number, you can just grab her network address! No more triangulating her cell signal... her car will broadcast its location to you... digital stalking made easy!
...sheesh, I'm scaring myself.
Do videogame soundtracks count? Because the Cold Storage soundtrack for WipeoutXL for the PC was awesome (and is available in its entirety in 192kbit mp3 files on their website).
That's true right now, under the protection of the BetaMax decision. But that was won by a slim margin (5-4) and the current supreme court might decide that the copyright protection for the copyright holders is more important than the fair use rights of the public. In that case, it would actually become illegal to have/use the Kazaa client. That's why this case is so important and has been so high-profile.
*places tongue firmly in cheek*
Ohhh, ohhh, ohhh - I know, I know! You can hold up a photograph you took, then use the RIAA claim that a computer makes a copy of the image and stores it, then sue the USPS for copyright infringement! I like it!
Hmmmm...
1) Get kiosk to make copy of photograph
2) sue USPS for copyright infringement
3) Profit!!!
It was a joke.. you moreon let this be a leson to your
Was that supposed to be
"you moron, let that be a lesson to you",
or was it
"you moron, let that be a lesion to your '.' "
??
Boy, the /. formatting really takes away from the whole sex=extacy visual of that joke, doesn't it?
So my question is: how difficult is it to upset the balance and cause the sand to fall into a lower energy state? If this is relatively easy, then the mixture becomes useless for most military applications.
OTOH, perhaps ground resonance imaging could be foiled by this... put a 'moat' of sorts around a concrete bunker, and if someone tried to use GRI to determine the location of the bunker, the quicksand would ruin the resolution of the resulting image. (Am I thinking this through properly?)
Yes, *but* -
1) ever tried to run on the beach? How much easier do you think running would be with the sand at waist-length?
2) an armored personnel carrier, tank, or other vehicle displaces a whole lot more than a human being.
3) a standard military pack is a whole lot more dense than a human being, by design. It will sink a whole lot further.
01100111 01110010 01100101 01100101 01101110
01100101 01100111 01100111 01110011
01100001 01101110 01100100
01101000 01100001 01101101
I would suggest looking into LED lighting. There are almost no emissions outside the visible spectrum, afaik.
This is how "balanced" TRS (Tip-Ring-Sleeve) and XLR-type audio cables are supposed to work. Much better than standard mono instrument cable, if your equipment supports it.
mutations may occur whenever a cell splits in two, not only when the animal reproduces
This is true, but don't forget that most of these mutations are completely lost right away; only those that are passed on to future generations by reproduction are able to persist.
A mutation which starts in the brain but doesn't make its way to the reproductive organs prior to procreation doesn't get passed on to any future generation.
There has been some recent research to contradict this. Our cells seems a little more willing to replace themselves than we thought. First neuroplasticity, now this... hmmm.
...Hello.sir. My.name.is.Steve. I.came.from.a.rough. area. I.used.to.be.addicted.to.crack.but.now.Im.off. and.trying.to.stay.clean... ...That.is.why.I.am.selling.magazine.subscriptions ...
Let's start with the easy one:
Also get down off your horse called 'open source is better in memory' world. I have been using firefox for a few months now. It takes nearly 4X the amount of ram that IE did.
I call bullshit. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
You only see the 1/4 memory space IE uses because the rest of it is incorporated into the OS. If core Firefox components were incorporated into Windows the way IE is, it would show less memory usage than IE does.
Now I wouldn't even say that I'm a linux user. I don't have it installed at home (though I have three distros at my fingertips should I choose to install it), but I guess I do use it a lot at work and elsewhere.
But I can put up a linux box of any flavor, attach it to the network, lock it down in minutes, and not worry about it being compromised. But when I put up a Win2k (or ME or 98 or XP) box and attach it to the network, I don't even have time to download the patches before the box has been compromised. What's more, there are some vulnerabilities which MS has decided aren't worth fixing. Now for me, Mr. Technical Home User, that's one thing, and I can deal with it. But for the Air Force? Do we really want nuclear missile defense systems multitasking as spam relays? Or DDOS zombies?
So you want to talk about using the right tool for the right task? When, in anybody's universe, has the tool for SECURITY been MICROSOFT?
...and the point of that was...?
Application proxy firewalls work just fine - Raptor makes an enterprise-class AP firewall that does a fantastic job. They require more resources to manage than simple stateful-inspection firewalls, but they are much more secure when managed properly.
As far as Mandatory Access Control (MAC) goes, it is even more difficult to manage than an AP firewall, and a terrible pain to implement - ever tried to make a MAC model work in an Active Directory environment? Not easy...
And even if you just choose to implement the RBAC part of a MAC model, how do you define roles? Unless you have a very stratified and well-defined role structure for the people who work in the enterprise, it is a daunting task to set up roles. In one place I worked, there were ~10,000 employees - and 4800+ job titles. Not exactly conducive to role assignment, to be sure.
OTOH, disabling writing is the best thing you can do with this if you want to have your evidence admissible in court. Anything which could tamper with the state of the drive after the user/cracker/process/etc. has finished with it can very easily make the courts (in the U.S. anyway, don't know about elsewhere) consider it contaminated evidence and therefore inadmissible.
That's why professional digital forensics kits (the worthwhile ones, that is) will actually make a bit-for-bit copy of the suspect drive without the possibility of changing a thing.
Be careful - digital forensics (just like regular forensics) is a lot harder than they make it look on TV. Google for "chain of custody" if you want to see how hard it can be...
When are they going to make one universal one that you can put an 8mb smartmedia card (or something similar) in and let you use one interface for all of them? There must be room in those big controllers to put more than one system's chip on the board... or else you could use a daughterboard design and have that interchangeable as well...
And when will they have a TI/994A one so I can finally get rid of my old cassette tapes...?
Whew, this is going to be a long one, so brace yourself... :-)
there are often major differences between official Roman Catholic doctrine and what individual RCs believe
This is technically not allowed. The 'official' Catholic doctrine is the only one Catholics are supposed to believe. Frankly, I don't agree with everything myself, but that's more on a philosophical level than a religious one. The Catholic Church is a living organization, and the doctrine does change from time to time based on the input of some of its members. (Big examples are Saints Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas - prolific writers who helped shape Church doctrine through their philosophical deductions.) Honestly, though, most Catholic doctrine is thoroughly considered by a lot of people, many of whom were much smarter and more scholarly than I. Tradition usually exists for a reason - it is generally beneficial, and a good way of passing the values of a society onto future generations who might not have the capacity to understand the environment from whence the traditions came, but can still benefit from the wisdom contained therein.
his body cannot be in more than one place at once, so now that he's in heaven, the bread and the wine in Mass, cannot possibly be of the 'real substance.'
Who says his body cannot be in more than one place at once? Where is that written? AFAIK, this is God we're talking about - who is to say what he can and cannot do?
Perhaps more to the point, it can be noted that the very appearance of Christ in more than one place, in fact the principal Biblical source from which the Catholic doctrinal article is taken, is contained in fact in the Bible. It is Catholic doctrine that Jesus was very specific, and was not inadvertantly speaking in metaphor when he said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-23, Luke 22:19-20). In this original (Last Supper) instance, He was present in what was the bread and wine as well as being physically present in the room with the Apostles - I would say that shows good prior art!
that Christ died once for all and that there is no need for any more sacrifice, surely Mass is a denial of what Christ did on the cross, and a rejection of him
It is not a redundant sacrifice. Jesus said, "Drink from this, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew, 26:27-28) For starters, I include myself in his command to "all of you". Secondly, we drink not to reenact His sacrifice, but to renew ourselves in the covenant we share with Him, the covenant he began that day with His apostles and which encompasses us all as Christians. Third, nearly all Christian denominations celebrate communion - every Baptist, Congregational, etc., church I've ever been to shared at least juice and bread in symbolic accordance with Christ's mandate to "do this in remembrance of me". So saying that the presence of Jesus' flesh and blood in the Catholic eucharist - something we believe was present at the Last Supper - is any different in practice than that of any other Christian denomination seems a little weak to me.
Or we could look at it another way - if the sharing of Christ's actual substance truly were anathema to Him, and since it is Him we ask in our prayers to institute transsubstantiation, do you think He would grant our request? I don't think so! So even if the Catholic doctrine is incorrect, and we did misinterpret Jesus' directive, we would still not be invalidating His sacrifice since the communion we share would not, in fact, be His body and blood! So please understand that our request to be in communion with Him and to share in His new covenant is an honest, humble, and faithful attempt to make the most of his sacrifice and not make a rejection of it. If you are truly interested in understanding the dogma of transsubstantiation, please read the
Linux embedded
gets my juices flowing
knowing I'm hacking
while movies are showing
typing one-handed
makes me want to sing
Knowing I'm doing my favorite things!
However, because of a combination of ignorance, confusion, and political intent, occurances of "God's anointed one" in the old testament are properly translated, while occurances in the new testament are translated as "Christ".
Um, you're missing something big here - the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek. "Christ" is a Greek word which never appeared in the Old Testament. The Hebrews used a word which translates to "Messiah" for references to the Savior, but uses a different word to describe Cyrus. Cyrus was never referred to as "Christ". The only "Christ" in the Bible was Jesus. Be careful when mixing languages, you'll trip yourself up.
As far as the "Jesus" thing goes, Attic Greek did have a "y" sound - IIRC annotated "i" in most modern translations. Iesu was the Romanized phonetic translation of the Greek, from whence the Franks drew "Jesu" through a consonant shift (a natural occurance in language) over 1000 years. This, when introduced into English during the reign of Charlemagne (1066+) in Britain, became the current Jesus.
It doesn't matter if I call God "God" or "Allah" or "YHWH" - the intent is the same. Jesus knows when I'm talking to him regardless of what name I use. Don't get hung up on stuff like that.
Be careful what you say; you are speaking out of turn. I am a practicing, educated Catholic, and NOTHING comes before God in the Catholic faith. Period, end of story.
I'm not sure what you're basing your statement on, or how you arrived at your conclusion, but unfortunately, as eloquently stated as it was, your premise was absolutely wrong.
The Catholic faith does not rely on scripture alone; we believe that there are people who are educated and blessed to be able to speak with authority on the interpretation of the Bible and its impact on our lives. It is very, very important to understand that this in no way supercedes the authority of the Bible.
Without having a centralized authority to determine the Bible's meanings, there is simply too much ambiguity in the fallible context of human language to force a single interpretation for all people - there will always be those who disagree about what parts of the Bible mean. Just look at the different ways Baptists, Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the same books in the Scriptures!
Yes, and no. There is a marked difference with stringed instruments between notes of the same pitch (i.e., the same Hz) which are played on different strings. This has to do with the timbre of the note.
The strings of most instruments have different diameters for each string, and all are wound differently; ainsi even at the same pitch (b#)and amplitude (volume) the sound can change.
The smaller diameter (higher pitched) strings on a violin produce fewer complex overtones, even for an identical pitch, than do the larger diameter strings. Therefore an A# elicited from the E string will have a more "pure" sound than that from the A string.
I believe this is what our synaesthetic friend was alluding to.