Thanks for reminding me. Yes, the Proton is a wonderfully efficient rocket, but it was the N1 which was the super Saturn V. However, as I recall, they did not so much run out of money as run out of Sergei Korolev, the leader of the N1 program. After his death, the N1 program never recovered and was shut down.
I remember a TV show about how the Russians built the Proton rockets. Instead of modeling, testing, checking and being safety conscious, they built the rocket, tested it---and it blew up. So they did it again. And it blew up, again. So they did it again. And again. And again. Until it worked. Net result was a booster more powerful than the Saturn V (AFAIK). Quite a different mode of working.
Along the way they also learned that their observation bunkers were too close to the rocket and not as blast proof as they had hoped. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the best way of working, just that there are other ways to do things if your values are somewhat different.
That settles it. I'm just going to have to move to the desert and wear a tinfoil hat to protect myself from the orbital mind control lasers.
But, wait. What if the tinfoil was made in China? Or made from metal that was recycled in China? What if all the world's tinfoil contains secret Chinese backdoors to stop the proper functioning of tinfoil hats?
Odds are very good that both Voyager and both Pioneer spacecraft will outlast this particular idea. Interstellar space is a good preserver unless you hit something.
The IRS is a perfect example of. A simple 10% flat tax would remove ALL the loop-holes.
It'd also remove all the definitions and clarity of the current system. [...]
I could make the comment that removing all the clarity of the current system would leave the current system mostly untouched:)
However, I mostly agree. As per Einstein's Razor "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." (Which seems to actually be a paraphrase of
It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.
WikiQuote Arguably the paraphrase is a nicely recursive demonstration of itself.)
Yes, and widely recognized as getting kids reading. Not just reading sf/fantasy but reading. Plus, there is enough depth in the stories that the kid will not quickly grow out of them.
You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away, provided that the ground is fairly soft. A rat is killed, a man is broken, a horse splashes
Sir, have you considered that maybe the universe is just a simulation? And if that is the case, we might be able to hack the simulator.
Trust me, you don't want to do this. The last time I did it I ran into a nasty bug (grad student, remember? Bug free hardly likely) so, sorry for only three sexes now, even if I did get rid of Gharlane.
I'm not doing that again until I'm sure my part of the universe is unpageable. Who knows what other horrors lurk in the untested recesses of the garbage collector?
Users were permitted to choose their own password. These passwords could be long. We had guidelines as to what were good schemes, but there was no enforcement of rules.
However, we also
ran a quick check on your password against a cracker and
ran a password cracker as a constant background job.
If your password was cracked by the quick checker, it was rejected and you had to choose another.
If the background checker cracked your password, you were locked out. When you tried to log on and couldn't, and called to find out why, you were told your password had been cracked and you needed a new one. (Actually, I think we emailed you then locked you out, so if you were on-line, you could choose a new password then and there).
Indeed, and so I should be ignoring you, but I'm not, because you have a valid point to make.
As Derek & Clive demonstrated, merely reeling off a string of swear words just blunts their effect. In the case of MightyMartian, his invective evidently did cause some other people to listen to what he had to say, and so was effective.
Personally, I tend to follow your approach: If I'm trying to persuade, then alienating your opposition is counterproductive. Nevertheless, I will try to see past the surface. Just because I don't like someone or what they have to say doesn't mean they might not be right.
The truth spoken rudely does not decrease its validity either. The incivility at least demonstrates passion.
The more important thing is argument vs bluster. MightyMartian's posts are at least amusing, as well as having some content, and I find them less offensive than some others here.
Yeah, I'll bite. Why not? (I'm assuming you are being sarcastic rather than trolling, but actually it doesn't matter).
You won't pay. By extension most people won't pay. So, most artists won't get paid, and so no art will be created. No music. No painting. No novels. No movies. No games.
I think not. People will continue to make music/painting/novels/movies/games. Maybe not as many---but maybe not. Look at Youtube. All of that amateur stuff. Most is the utter dreck of Sturgeon's Law, but some is actually Not Too Bad.
And why do the artists do it? Gasp! People do things Without Being Paid! Maybe they do it for the fame. Or sheer ego.
Or they find other ways of being paid. Patrons. Concerts. Merchandise. Advertising.
My point is that if you abolished copyright, you would certainly disrupt things, but you would NOT abolish art. You might not even disrupt things as much as you might think.
Music, great music, existed before the Statute of Anne (1710). Monteverdi, Corelli, Purcell, Couperin, Vivaldi, Telemann, Bach, Scarlatti, Handel---all born before 1710. There was a time before copyright.
Are you merely being sarcastic and arguing that piracy hurts artists? In that case, we should find a better way than the current copyright regime to reward artists, because the current copyright regime doesn't work very well.
But, that's not why we are told to switch off the devices. At least I have never heard "turn off your devices during take-off and landing so you don't fry your brains (but it's just fine to do so when you are sitting waiting on the tarmac)". All I've ever heard is because the devices "can interfere with aircraft electronics".
Modern commercial passenger aircraft are barely flown by the pilot anyway. Automation is so extensive that the air craft is basically a drone flight and the pilot is just an emergency override.[...]
No, not even close. See the "Ask the Pilot" piece, or go read a bit more about it. Patrick covers this particular myth with remarkable frequency, since It Will Not Die!
Passengers using electronics is unlikely in the extreme to ever impact flight safety.
Absolutely agree. Basically, if it were possible to bring a plane down merely by using a cellphone, it would already have been done by now. Certain groups have an intense interest in doing just that. They haven't, so they can't. Q.E.D.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for reminding me. Yes, the Proton is a wonderfully efficient rocket, but it was the N1 which was the super Saturn V. However, as I recall, they did not so much run out of money as run out of Sergei Korolev, the leader of the N1 program. After his death, the N1 program never recovered and was shut down.
I remember a TV show about how the Russians built the Proton rockets. Instead of modeling, testing, checking and being safety conscious, they built the rocket, tested it---and it blew up. So they did it again. And it blew up, again. So they did it again. And again. And again. Until it worked. Net result was a booster more powerful than the Saturn V (AFAIK). Quite a different mode of working.
Along the way they also learned that their observation bunkers were too close to the rocket and not as blast proof as they had hoped. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the best way of working, just that there are other ways to do things if your values are somewhat different.
use a language that treats pointers as opaque immutable objects
tada!
That helps, but using hardware that treats them that way is better.
Or running in a sandbox that enforces descriptor protocols.
For the TL;DR, the link describes an architecture---still in use and now implemented on x86 processors---where buffer overflow is impossible.
I rather like adrenochrome—the word that is.
even slashdot's title is misspelled. a sign of the times.
The entity formerly known as slashdot?
But, wait. What if the tinfoil was made in China? Or made from metal that was recycled in China? What if all the world's tinfoil contains secret Chinese backdoors to stop the proper functioning of tinfoil hats?
Odds are very good that both Voyager and both Pioneer spacecraft will outlast this particular idea. Interstellar space is a good preserver unless you hit something.
IOW, store it in the cloud---the Oort Cloud.
So, at $112,760 per year (median) that's 9% of the median salary. The Ad Litems’ attorneys’ fees and expenses could be rather more painful I suppose.
I don't think we do that any more.
"For the term of his natural life"?
I'm betting not.
Some time in prison?
After all, as an officer of the court, he's undermined the institution. Surely this should be treated seriously?
A large fine?
???
I really don't know, but I'm guessing none of the above.
So, what are the consequences of his actions?
... they would have patented it then sued everyone for having mass.
Well, there do seem to be more Higg's Bosons per person in the USA than other countries, but it appears that Mississippi has a greater claim than Texas
The IRS is a perfect example of. A simple 10% flat tax would remove ALL the loop-holes.
It'd also remove all the definitions and clarity of the current system. [...]
I could make the comment that removing all the clarity of the current system would leave the current system mostly untouched :)
However, I mostly agree. As per Einstein's Razor "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." (Which seems to actually be a paraphrase of
It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.
WikiQuote Arguably the paraphrase is a nicely recursive demonstration of itself.)
Some sots of flat tax seem to work quite well. VAT/GST with no exceptions, rather than the U.K. nightmare.. Poll Tax is wonderfully simple too. But not such a good idea.
I doubt a flat 10% tax would work. That doesn't mean the US Tax regime couldn't be improved.
>> Gandhi was a lawyer.
Hitler was an artist.
Godwin is a lawyer
Yes, and widely recognized as getting kids reading. Not just reading sf/fantasy but reading. Plus, there is enough depth in the stories that the kid will not quickly grow out of them.
"Creatures of darkness cannot abide the light".
After all, as we are so often reminded: "What have you got to hide? If you are innocent you have nothing to fear."
The findings offer little aid in controlling the pest but could help engineers improve the design of tiny flying robots.
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
On Being the Right Size J. B. S. Haldane in 1928
Sir, have you considered that maybe the universe is just a simulation? And if that is the case, we might be able to hack the simulator.
Trust me, you don't want to do this. The last time I did it I ran into a nasty bug (grad student, remember? Bug free hardly likely) so, sorry for only three sexes now, even if I did get rid of Gharlane.
I'm not doing that again until I'm sure my part of the universe is unpageable. Who knows what other horrors lurk in the untested recesses of the garbage collector?
It was indeed "corporate network"; it was not Exchange. It was years ago, and the users in question were logged on to Unix systems.
Users were permitted to choose their own password. These passwords could be long. We had guidelines as to what were good schemes, but there was no enforcement of rules.
However, we also
If your password was cracked by the quick checker, it was rejected and you had to choose another.
If the background checker cracked your password, you were locked out. When you tried to log on and couldn't, and called to find out why, you were told your password had been cracked and you needed a new one. (Actually, I think we emailed you then locked you out, so if you were on-line, you could choose a new password then and there).
It worked.
As Derek & Clive demonstrated, merely reeling off a string of swear words just blunts their effect. In the case of MightyMartian, his invective evidently did cause some other people to listen to what he had to say, and so was effective.
Personally, I tend to follow your approach: If I'm trying to persuade, then alienating your opposition is counterproductive. Nevertheless, I will try to see past the surface. Just because I don't like someone or what they have to say doesn't mean they might not be right.
The more important thing is argument vs bluster. MightyMartian's posts are at least amusing, as well as having some content, and I find them less offensive than some others here.
You won't pay. By extension most people won't pay. So, most artists won't get paid, and so no art will be created. No music. No painting. No novels. No movies. No games.
I think not. People will continue to make music/painting/novels/movies/games. Maybe not as many---but maybe not. Look at Youtube. All of that amateur stuff. Most is the utter dreck of Sturgeon's Law, but some is actually Not Too Bad.
And why do the artists do it? Gasp! People do things Without Being Paid! Maybe they do it for the fame. Or sheer ego.
Or they find other ways of being paid. Patrons. Concerts. Merchandise. Advertising.
My point is that if you abolished copyright, you would certainly disrupt things, but you would NOT abolish art. You might not even disrupt things as much as you might think.
Music, great music, existed before the Statute of Anne (1710). Monteverdi, Corelli, Purcell, Couperin, Vivaldi, Telemann, Bach, Scarlatti, Handel---all born before 1710. There was a time before copyright.
Are you merely being sarcastic and arguing that piracy hurts artists? In that case, we should find a better way than the current copyright regime to reward artists, because the current copyright regime doesn't work very well.
Here is a data sheet for such a modem
But, that's not why we are told to switch off the devices. At least I have never heard "turn off your devices during take-off and landing so you don't fry your brains (but it's just fine to do so when you are sitting waiting on the tarmac)". All I've ever heard is because the devices "can interfere with aircraft electronics".
Modern commercial passenger aircraft are barely flown by the pilot anyway. Automation is so extensive that the air craft is basically a drone flight and the pilot is just an emergency override.[...]
No, not even close. See the "Ask the Pilot" piece, or go read a bit more about it. Patrick covers this particular myth with remarkable frequency, since It Will Not Die!
Passengers using electronics is unlikely in the extreme to ever impact flight safety.
Absolutely agree. Basically, if it were possible to bring a plane down merely by using a cellphone, it would already have been done by now. Certain groups have an intense interest in doing just that. They haven't, so they can't. Q.E.D.