"Is involved"? Who says? Properly speaking, until there has been a trial, then the site is only alleged to be involved - so the they could not close it down. I have no problems with closing sites after a fair trial has found guilt of a crime. Unfortunately, the implication of the rest of the article is that "is involved" actually means "is alleged by police to be involved"
Strong agreement to this. They don't enforce these laws rigorously because they know that society wouldn't accept it. But that actually means they are bad laws: laws should encode the rules that society has agreed to. The reason these laws exist is to give power to the authorities. Their threat, and their occasional use, is immensely empowering to the police. You don't have to hit people with your big stick to make them obey: the threat is nearly always enough.
There are two lots of Wikileaks: the Bradley Manning (allegedly) leaks, and a lot of other stuff from other sources which they leaked before Bradley Manning (allegedly). The earlier stuff seemed to me entirely deserving of being leaked: helicopters apparently shooting down news crews and civilians etc. There was a possibility of real crime being revealed. But then we come to the BM leaks. All they showed was that, as you say, diplomacy is a distinctly grimier business than it pretends to be. Ambassadors say one thing to their hosts and a different thing to the state department. Governments lobby for their come companies. Favours are done for unsavoury characters. But we suspected this. The BM leaks have not pointed to any seriois crimes, and have put a big spanner in the works of everyday diplomacy. I think Assange lost his head with the "treasure trove" from BM (allegedly) and lost sight of the original purpose of Wikileaks - whistleblowing - in an orgy of scandalmongering.
I agree - except that it should not have come out via Wikileaks. The US is entitled to lobby on behalf of two large US corporations which have decided to merge. But is should do so in the open - as should all lobbyists.
Trtue. I work with a dyslexic hardware engineer, and the spelling of register names he passes to me is somewhat random. But I am not going to dig into his VHDL (from which my.h files are autogenerated) to fix them. I take what I am given, and use cut and paste as a last resort.
(He may be dyslexic. but he is a damned good designer. And I have to type "dyslexic" with considerable care).
OK = colour or color? -ise or -ize? If i, a Brit, submit my code written in the language I use, am I going to be bombarded with patches trying to Americanize my code?
And I actually use a hybrid system. I use the "British" colour, but the "American" -ize. Just because they feel better to me. Neither colour not color is the way I pronounce the word - cullur would be a better transliteration (Chaucer pronounced it colour, to rhyme with flower, which is why we spell it that way). But -ize is the way I pronounce that suffix in most cases, so I spell it that way.
Which, in a relativistic way of thinking, makes it now: now in 4D spacetime is the set of point from which light travelling by the shortest path would reach us at a single instant.
It's in another galaxy. Are these things really so rare that the closest one we've ever seen is in another galaxy?
Yes, within the time of modern instruments. The last one in this galaxy was Kepler's Supernova in 1604. However, we sould expect about 0ne every 50 years, so we are having a bit of a drought,
I don't think that is true. I think changes in the dielectric constants actually change the rate at which electromagnetic waves propagate in transparent materials. If photons were bouncing off atoms, they would not keep travelling in the same direction, so water would be translucent rather than transparent.
What's nice here is how quickly it was accidentally discovered. That will be helpful for studying.
It was no accident: it was discovered by a system specifically set up to do a search of the sky every night looking for changes just like this, It is modern computer-assisted observations that made this possible: computers will do the tedious task of looking at the same bit of sky over and over again looking for changes.
And, in terms of the prosperity of the country, has this been a bad thing? Countries that have not had government-funded development have remained technically backward. Countries that have hugged their government-funded development to their government heart have had inefficient, unreliable tech industries. Th US has got the leading position it has by the very process you describe of government developing a technology to prove it was viable, then leaving it to private enterprise to make something marketable out of it, and market it.
No, it is not state-sponsored socialism: if it were, the government would hang on to their inefficient dinosaur technology companies as happened in many European countries.
Go on, kill the golden goose: destroy the US tech lead by stopping DARPA, NASA etc from doing blue sky research,
Except that, should they do this, they will then cost as much as or more than the Chinese they are boasting about undercutting. They are saying that they are in an open market for non-man-rated launches to orbit: they are competing with the Russian and Chinese national launch systems. If they start with "teaser" rates and then raise them, a canny buyer will take the teaser and then go elsewhere once it expires. It has already been shown that you can switch a payload from one launch system to another for not many millions, especially if the possibility was considered at design time.
A case of the free market possibly working.
I am surprised that you cannot accept that the price of something cannot fall over fifty years of development without impacting safety, The price of most tech gadgets falls over over time, while the performance rises. Plane tickets cost a fraction of what they did during the Apollo program, and are far safer. Why should not freight-to-orbit have followed a similar, albeit slower, curve?
That scene was written by Arthur C Clarke directly from NASA research, ACC had a lot of friends inside NASA, and wrote several stories based on stuff he got "from the horse's mouth". Not leaked - it was all public knowledge. But he got to talk to the researchers not just read the press releases and papers.
Ctrl-H was backspace on paper tape machines. It dates back well before vim: I was using it in 1970, though you had to follow it with DEL to remove the mistype before retyping. It probably dates back to the 19th century.
No, it is not source code in the sense the GPL requires: "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". Just because something is in compilable ascii code doesn't make it the source code. You could no doubt convert a binary into some huge hex constant which would be valid C and would compile back to the binary, but nobody would accept that as the source code.
That said, the problem is trivial. It is obviously just a minor cock-up which no-one has noticed. Formally, they should either have included the bison source, which they have just realised they didn't. or have include a formal offer to provide it on demand, which they probably didn't do because they thought they were offering full source. But I think anybody would realise that such an offer was implicit in any software released by the FSF. To worry that the FSF would/not/ releas source should they have been found to have accidentally omitted something, as appears to have happened here, is frankly perverse.
Zurich are not trying to get out because of Sony's gross negligence in their security. This is what the various drunk driving and lunatic driving analogies would imply.
From TFA, Zurich are saying 'it does not have to defend or indemnify Sony against any claims "asserted in the class-action lawsuits, miscellaneous claims, or potential future actions instituted by any state attorney general."' I.e. that the policy was never insurance against cyber-damage, but against property or personal damage caused by Sony's products. If Sony's products exploded, or polluted the environment, or jammed radios, Zurich would have to pay up. But they claim that the policy they sold was never intended to cover Sony's databases.
While having immense respect for those who worked on the Shuttle program, and certainly honouring those who lost their lives in its operations, I feel that this is the end of a huge diversion. It turned out that the Shuttle was never as good an idea as it was originally made out to be. It certainly never lived up to its name. I feel, but I don't know, that this could have been recognised earlier and the U-turn being made now could have been made twenty years ago. Unfortunately, the "Concorde effect" cut in - nobody would take responsibility for axing a program on which tens of billions had been spend - so hundreds of billions more had to be spend on a flawed, albeit marvellous - project.
And look ahead: not may years ahead, America may have multiple launchers, some man-rated, some not, to give a broad spectrum capability at much lower cost. Sometimes, backtracking is the wisest thing to do.
In which case the problem is not this gadget, it is the detaining. I am entirely with anybody wanting to protests unnecessary detention by the police, even for a second or so. But attack the underlying ill, not the technology.
There is, I agree, a creeping tendency spreading from the airline industry to believe that anybody whose intentions are (or are claimed to be) to increase security has the power to be a nuisance in several ways in pursuit of that goal. They are wrong, and need to be reminded.
In which case you must add Eris, Makemake, Ceres, Quaoar, Vesta and probably others to the list. Vesta even has a man-made satellite orbiting it now. The list of planets will be open and ever extending, and there will be an insoluble argument about where you draw the line between planets and asteroids,
The point is that the air is travelling fastest at the surface of the fan, slows as it passes through intervening space, and slowest when it strikes a fixed object, the heat sink - which is where its speed is needed. When the medium speed airflow hits the unmoving heat sink, a boundary layer builds up, making the effective speed for the last millimetre negligible. No, making the fan move would not help much; it is the fact that the cold object is moving fastest and the hot object moving slowest which makes the current system inefficient. This design makes the hot object move fast relative to the surrounding air.
Slashdot Mirror
"Is involved"? Who says? Properly speaking, until there has been a trial, then the site is only alleged to be involved - so the they could not close it down. I have no problems with closing sites after a fair trial has found guilt of a crime. Unfortunately, the implication of the rest of the article is that "is involved" actually means "is alleged by police to be involved"
Strong agreement to this. They don't enforce these laws rigorously because they know that society wouldn't accept it. But that actually means they are bad laws: laws should encode the rules that society has agreed to. The reason these laws exist is to give power to the authorities. Their threat, and their occasional use, is immensely empowering to the police. You don't have to hit people with your big stick to make them obey: the threat is nearly always enough.
There are two lots of Wikileaks: the Bradley Manning (allegedly) leaks, and a lot of other stuff from other sources which they leaked before Bradley Manning (allegedly). The earlier stuff seemed to me entirely deserving of being leaked: helicopters apparently shooting down news crews and civilians etc. There was a possibility of real crime being revealed. But then we come to the BM leaks. All they showed was that, as you say, diplomacy is a distinctly grimier business than it pretends to be. Ambassadors say one thing to their hosts and a different thing to the state department. Governments lobby for their come companies. Favours are done for unsavoury characters. But we suspected this. The BM leaks have not pointed to any seriois crimes, and have put a big spanner in the works of everyday diplomacy. I think Assange lost his head with the "treasure trove" from BM (allegedly) and lost sight of the original purpose of Wikileaks - whistleblowing - in an orgy of scandalmongering.
I agree - except that it should not have come out via Wikileaks. The US is entitled to lobby on behalf of two large US corporations which have decided to merge. But is should do so in the open - as should all lobbyists.
Trtue. I work with a dyslexic hardware engineer, and the spelling of register names he passes to me is somewhat random. But I am not going to dig into his VHDL (from which my .h files are autogenerated) to fix them. I take what I am given, and use cut and paste as a last resort.
(He may be dyslexic. but he is a damned good designer. And I have to type "dyslexic" with considerable care).
OK = colour or color? -ise or -ize? If i, a Brit, submit my code written in the language I use, am I going to be bombarded with patches trying to Americanize my code?
And I actually use a hybrid system. I use the "British" colour, but the "American" -ize. Just because they feel better to me. Neither colour not color is the way I pronounce the word - cullur would be a better transliteration (Chaucer pronounced it colour, to rhyme with flower, which is why we spell it that way). But -ize is the way I pronounce that suffix in most cases, so I spell it that way.
Which, in a relativistic way of thinking, makes it now: now in 4D spacetime is the set of point from which light travelling by the shortest path would reach us at a single instant.
This supernova was very close to us.
It's in another galaxy. Are these things really so rare that the closest one we've ever seen is in another galaxy?
Yes, within the time of modern instruments. The last one in this galaxy was Kepler's Supernova in 1604. However, we sould expect about 0ne every 50 years, so we are having a bit of a drought,
I don't think that is true. I think changes in the dielectric constants actually change the rate at which electromagnetic waves propagate in transparent materials. If photons were bouncing off atoms, they would not keep travelling in the same direction, so water would be translucent rather than transparent.
What's nice here is how quickly it was accidentally discovered. That will be helpful for studying.
It was no accident: it was discovered by a system specifically set up to do a search of the sky every night looking for changes just like this, It is modern computer-assisted observations that made this possible: computers will do the tedious task of looking at the same bit of sky over and over again looking for changes.
It is a text, just a special text which sounds a special alarm rather than the usual text arrival alarm.
Well, we had dragons in Europe as well.
And, in terms of the prosperity of the country, has this been a bad thing? Countries that have not had government-funded development have remained technically backward. Countries that have hugged their government-funded development to their government heart have had inefficient, unreliable tech industries. Th US has got the leading position it has by the very process you describe of government developing a technology to prove it was viable, then leaving it to private enterprise to make something marketable out of it, and market it.
No, it is not state-sponsored socialism: if it were, the government would hang on to their inefficient dinosaur technology companies as happened in many European countries.
Go on, kill the golden goose: destroy the US tech lead by stopping DARPA, NASA etc from doing blue sky research,
Except that, should they do this, they will then cost as much as or more than the Chinese they are boasting about undercutting. They are saying that they are in an open market for non-man-rated launches to orbit: they are competing with the Russian and Chinese national launch systems. If they start with "teaser" rates and then raise them, a canny buyer will take the teaser and then go elsewhere once it expires. It has already been shown that you can switch a payload from one launch system to another for not many millions, especially if the possibility was considered at design time.
A case of the free market possibly working.
I am surprised that you cannot accept that the price of something cannot fall over fifty years of development without impacting safety, The price of most tech gadgets falls over over time, while the performance rises. Plane tickets cost a fraction of what they did during the Apollo program, and are far safer. Why should not freight-to-orbit have followed a similar, albeit slower, curve?
That scene was written by Arthur C Clarke directly from NASA research, ACC had a lot of friends inside NASA, and wrote several stories based on stuff he got "from the horse's mouth". Not leaked - it was all public knowledge. But he got to talk to the researchers not just read the press releases and papers.
Ctrl-H was backspace on paper tape machines. It dates back well before vim: I was using it in 1970, though you had to follow it with DEL to remove the mistype before retyping. It probably dates back to the 19th century.
No, it is not source code in the sense the GPL requires: "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". Just because something is in compilable ascii code doesn't make it the source code. You could no doubt convert a binary into some huge hex constant which would be valid C and would compile back to the binary, but nobody would accept that as the source code.
That said, the problem is trivial. It is obviously just a minor cock-up which no-one has noticed. Formally, they should either have included the bison source, which they have just realised they didn't. or have include a formal offer to provide it on demand, which they probably didn't do because they thought they were offering full source. But I think anybody would realise that such an offer was implicit in any software released by the FSF. To worry that the FSF would /not/ releas source should they have been found to have accidentally omitted something, as appears to have happened here, is frankly perverse.
That is not the point. Zurich is claiming they never covered for cyberdamage, so it is irrelevant whether the security was good or not.
Zurich are not trying to get out because of Sony's gross negligence in their security. This is what the various drunk driving and lunatic driving analogies would imply.
From TFA, Zurich are saying 'it does not have to defend or indemnify Sony against any claims "asserted in the class-action lawsuits, miscellaneous claims, or potential future actions instituted by any state attorney general."' I.e. that the policy was never insurance against cyber-damage, but against property or personal damage caused by Sony's products. If Sony's products exploded, or polluted the environment, or jammed radios, Zurich would have to pay up. But they claim that the policy they sold was never intended to cover Sony's databases.
While having immense respect for those who worked on the Shuttle program, and certainly honouring those who lost their lives in its operations, I feel that this is the end of a huge diversion. It turned out that the Shuttle was never as good an idea as it was originally made out to be. It certainly never lived up to its name. I feel, but I don't know, that this could have been recognised earlier and the U-turn being made now could have been made twenty years ago. Unfortunately, the "Concorde effect" cut in - nobody would take responsibility for axing a program on which tens of billions had been spend - so hundreds of billions more had to be spend on a flawed, albeit marvellous - project.
And look ahead: not may years ahead, America may have multiple launchers, some man-rated, some not, to give a broad spectrum capability at much lower cost. Sometimes, backtracking is the wisest thing to do.
In which case the problem is not this gadget, it is the detaining. I am entirely with anybody wanting to protests unnecessary detention by the police, even for a second or so. But attack the underlying ill, not the technology.
There is, I agree, a creeping tendency spreading from the airline industry to believe that anybody whose intentions are (or are claimed to be) to increase security has the power to be a nuisance in several ways in pursuit of that goal. They are wrong, and need to be reminded.
In which case you must add Eris, Makemake, Ceres, Quaoar, Vesta and probably others to the list. Vesta even has a man-made satellite orbiting it now. The list of planets will be open and ever extending, and there will be an insoluble argument about where you draw the line between planets and asteroids,
Leaves - invented by God(tm)
Guiding the blind. Steer down the street, where a 1 metre error = hit by car.
Guiding the drunk (driver).
The point is that the air is travelling fastest at the surface of the fan, slows as it passes through intervening space, and slowest when it strikes a fixed object, the heat sink - which is where its speed is needed. When the medium speed airflow hits the unmoving heat sink, a boundary layer builds up, making the effective speed for the last millimetre negligible. No, making the fan move would not help much; it is the fact that the cold object is moving fastest and the hot object moving slowest which makes the current system inefficient. This design makes the hot object move fast relative to the surrounding air.