Re:Fuzzing and Obfuscation
on
Mitnick on OSS
·
· Score: 1
I dont think so - if you want/. in your path, it's because you want the system to behave the way, say, ms-dos does. It first looks for a system command by that name, and if none exists, then it runs the local file. In other words, it gives you the same behavior your windoze users would expect. It should most certainly be the last item in the path, though.
Re:Fuzzing and Obfuscation
on
Mitnick on OSS
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Agreed. It would take a pretty crappy admin to have "./" in his default path, and even crappier to have it BEFORE the/bin and/sbin.
read the article? surely you jest. reading the article would keep TMM from getting one of the earliest posts and the easy karma that comes along with it.
Why should a guild be limited to GLBT? What if someone tried to make a "whites-only" guild? The whole POINT of an online game is that you can get away from your real self and become another persona - a person's sexual orientation, race, creed, color, or taste in music has exactly jack squat to do with the game or the game world.
When I saw them do the peanut butter jelly time bit, I nearly died laughing. It's hard to imagine a more obscure reference they could have thrown out there. I'm waiting for stewie to bust out an "all your base" reference one of these days.
Karma? Don't care. The score of this post, which adresses a factually incorrect statement? Do care.
My karma has been maxed out since the days when they displayed a numeric karma score - I don't give a shit. I do, however, want something I said that I consider important to be seen.
However, we're still left with the age old question: If gravity is manifest as a particle, why can't we shield against it?
There could be lots of reasons for this. The mechanism certainly isn't the same, but as an example of a particle which cannot be shielded, you need look no further than a neutrino, which can pass through the entire Earth.
Plain wrong : From TFA "critics point out that MOND cannot explain the observed masses of clusters of galaxies without invoking dark matter"
The new theory is STVG, not MOND. MOND is ANOTHER alternate theory, which is being compared to STVG. Maybe instead of trying to rush to prove the submitter wrong and post early so you can get modded up, you should... I dunno, read the fucking article?
As do physicists - for many of us who are still young, tenure is the goal behind driving ourselves through grueling graduate school and a couple of postdocs. Whee - get a PhD and work for four or five years doing 12 hour days making 30k a year - just to try to build a name for yourself so you can start interviewing for tenure-track positions by the time you're in your mid thirties..
the efficiency of air conditioning changes with the temperature of the outside air (unless it's something that does heat exchange with the ground, such as a heat pump). therefore, pumping out the same 10k joules in the early morning could indeed cost less energy than pumping it out during the day.
that being said - I still hate roland pipsqueak blog articles, and wish we had an option to filter them
If that sounds eccentric, it's pretty clear you don't work around physicists!
I never said nonlinear dynamics ruled out the possibility of a Nemesis planet - I said it was an example of one of the idiotic claims made by the proponents of said theory.
The "every 30 millions years" thing is not fully accepted yet - so to try to base a physics theory on it is completely asinine. That's like modifying quantum mechanics to explain the presense of bigfoot.
I wrote my undergraduate thesis, in physics, in nonlinear dynamics - I'm pretty familiar with the subject;)
Yes, a nonlinear system has the ability to exhibit regions of chaotic behavior and regions that are non-chaotic. As the simplest example, consider the logistic map, and the famous bifurcation diagram. For low values of the parameter, you get nice periodic behavior no matter what initial number you feed in. As you increase the paramter you move into regions which are chaotic, but still contain those periodic orbits, albeit unstably. Move further along in parameters and you move into nonchaotic regimes again.
However, this is a simplistic system. When you move into many-body, you obviously have metastable periodic orbits - look at our own solar system. However, the probability of finding true stable periodic orbits becomes smaller and smaller as you add more objects. Essentially, you've moved into a region of parameter space where there is only chaotic behavior.
As a curiosisity, it's not unreasonable to ask if we are still in the transients. That is, when a theorist studys a chaotic system, he usually gives it some initial conditions, then lets it run for a while, so it can settle into its long-term behavior. Put another way, you start out at a point in phase space and allow the trajectory to fall into the strange attractor. Now this part is pure speculation, and unlike the evil planet people - I would never call it a theory. It's quite possible that our universe is still within the transients period, and has not settled into any long-term behavior. In that case, the exponential sensitivity to initial conditions would still be there no matter what the final attractor looks like.
Yeah, I should have said "three or more". I'm actually glad you pointed that out, because subtle errors in writing like that are important when writing a scientific paper where you want every word to be meaningful and accurate. It's always good to look back at what I've been writing and see places to improve.
but saying that inacurracies in many-bodies problems cannot be exploited for discovering new things is just plain wrong.
And that's not what I said. I said claiming your theory removes the buildup of inaccuracies over time is just plain wrong. That is a fundamental feature of nonlinear equations, and no new object could ever be added to remove it.
Of course you can discover new planets based on the idea of a perturbation to the already assumed solution. You're talking about a minor increase in accuracy though - these folks, like most crackpots, claim that everything we do now is HORRIBLY flawed and only they hold the answers. That's the hallmark of bad science. All the data undeniably lead to an accurate description of neptune's position, so we knew where to look and found it. This "theory" involves data that very much DOES NOT lead to any reasonable prediction about this object - it's pure conjecture based on the questionably cyclic nature of Earth extinctions.
So shifting known objects around in such a way that they better fit the data is now the same thing as adding an imaginary star of arbitrary mass and position? Right.
Actually it's because I've gotten so sick of people replying to my posts and trying to rebuke my arguments without reading carefully enough.
For example, I say dogs can not fly. Random/. troll replies and says "you idiot, only birds can fly" - completely missing the not. So I capitolize to eliminate one more type of annoying reply. It has nothing to do with leading credence to my posts. It has everything to do with the annoying nature of some/. posters.
The cosmological constant is not an "imaginary extra object". It is a fundamental constant like the mass of an electron or the permeability of free space.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont think so - if you want /. in your path, it's because you want the system to behave the way, say, ms-dos does. It first looks for a system command by that name, and if none exists, then it runs the local file. In other words, it gives you the same behavior your windoze users would expect. It should most certainly be the last item in the path, though.
Agreed. It would take a pretty crappy admin to have "./" in his default path, and even crappier to have it BEFORE the /bin and /sbin.
Exactly what I was thinking - just because some 7 dollar an hour ticket agent says it's a law doesn't make it a law.
read the article? surely you jest. reading the article would keep TMM from getting one of the earliest posts and the easy karma that comes along with it.
Why should a guild be limited to GLBT? What if someone tried to make a "whites-only" guild? The whole POINT of an online game is that you can get away from your real self and become another persona - a person's sexual orientation, race, creed, color, or taste in music has exactly jack squat to do with the game or the game world.
Breaking news... pot calls kettle black. Film at 11.
When I saw them do the peanut butter jelly time bit, I nearly died laughing. It's hard to imagine a more obscure reference they could have thrown out there. I'm waiting for stewie to bust out an "all your base" reference one of these days.
I was not aware of that - thanks for the heads up!
The really strange thing is my +1 karma bonus vanished - I don't think this was a result of moderation so much as a bug in /.
That's the main reason I was curious about it.
Karma? Don't care. The score of this post, which adresses a factually incorrect statement? Do care.
My karma has been maxed out since the days when they displayed a numeric karma score - I don't give a shit. I do, however, want something I said that I consider important to be seen.
I'm confused - my post doesn't show any negative moderation, and it was at +5 a minute ago. Is the /. mod setup crashing or something?
However, we're still left with the age old question: If gravity is manifest as a particle, why can't we shield against it?
There could be lots of reasons for this. The mechanism certainly isn't the same, but as an example of a particle which cannot be shielded, you need look no further than a neutrino, which can pass through the entire Earth.
Plain wrong : From TFA "critics point out that MOND cannot explain the observed masses of clusters of galaxies without invoking dark matter"
The new theory is STVG, not MOND. MOND is ANOTHER alternate theory, which is being compared to STVG. Maybe instead of trying to rush to prove the submitter wrong and post early so you can get modded up, you should... I dunno, read the fucking article?
As do physicists - for many of us who are still young, tenure is the goal behind driving ourselves through grueling graduate school and a couple of postdocs. Whee - get a PhD and work for four or five years doing 12 hour days making 30k a year - just to try to build a name for yourself so you can start interviewing for tenure-track positions by the time you're in your mid thirties..
the efficiency of air conditioning changes with the temperature of the outside air (unless it's something that does heat exchange with the ground, such as a heat pump). therefore, pumping out the same 10k joules in the early morning could indeed cost less energy than pumping it out during the day.
that being said - I still hate roland pipsqueak blog articles, and wish we had an option to filter them
That all depends on the density of the glue relative to the fibers in the composite. It could lighten the material, or make it heavier.
If that sounds eccentric, it's pretty clear you don't work around physicists!
I never said nonlinear dynamics ruled out the possibility of a Nemesis planet - I said it was an example of one of the idiotic claims made by the proponents of said theory.
The "every 30 millions years" thing is not fully accepted yet - so to try to base a physics theory on it is completely asinine. That's like modifying quantum mechanics to explain the presense of bigfoot.
I wrote my undergraduate thesis, in physics, in nonlinear dynamics - I'm pretty familiar with the subject ;)
Yes, a nonlinear system has the ability to exhibit regions of chaotic behavior and regions that are non-chaotic. As the simplest example, consider the logistic map, and the famous bifurcation diagram. For low values of the parameter, you get nice periodic behavior no matter what initial number you feed in. As you increase the paramter you move into regions which are chaotic, but still contain those periodic orbits, albeit unstably. Move further along in parameters and you move into nonchaotic regimes again.
However, this is a simplistic system. When you move into many-body, you obviously have metastable periodic orbits - look at our own solar system. However, the probability of finding true stable periodic orbits becomes smaller and smaller as you add more objects. Essentially, you've moved into a region of parameter space where there is only chaotic behavior.
As a curiosisity, it's not unreasonable to ask if we are still in the transients. That is, when a theorist studys a chaotic system, he usually gives it some initial conditions, then lets it run for a while, so it can settle into its long-term behavior. Put another way, you start out at a point in phase space and allow the trajectory to fall into the strange attractor. Now this part is pure speculation, and unlike the evil planet people - I would never call it a theory. It's quite possible that our universe is still within the transients period, and has not settled into any long-term behavior. In that case, the exponential sensitivity to initial conditions would still be there no matter what the final attractor looks like.
Yeah, I should have said "three or more". I'm actually glad you pointed that out, because subtle errors in writing like that are important when writing a scientific paper where you want every word to be meaningful and accurate. It's always good to look back at what I've been writing and see places to improve.
but saying that inacurracies in many-bodies problems cannot be exploited for discovering new things is just plain wrong.
And that's not what I said. I said claiming your theory removes the buildup of inaccuracies over time is just plain wrong. That is a fundamental feature of nonlinear equations, and no new object could ever be added to remove it.
Of course you can discover new planets based on the idea of a perturbation to the already assumed solution. You're talking about a minor increase in accuracy though - these folks, like most crackpots, claim that everything we do now is HORRIBLY flawed and only they hold the answers. That's the hallmark of bad science. All the data undeniably lead to an accurate description of neptune's position, so we knew where to look and found it. This "theory" involves data that very much DOES NOT lead to any reasonable prediction about this object - it's pure conjecture based on the questionably cyclic nature of Earth extinctions.
So shifting known objects around in such a way that they better fit the data is now the same thing as adding an imaginary star of arbitrary mass and position? Right.
Actually it's because I've gotten so sick of people replying to my posts and trying to rebuke my arguments without reading carefully enough.
/. troll replies and says "you idiot, only birds can fly" - completely missing the not. So I capitolize to eliminate one more type of annoying reply. It has nothing to do with leading credence to my posts. It has everything to do with the annoying nature of some /. posters.
For example, I say dogs can not fly. Random
The cosmological constant is not an "imaginary extra object". It is a fundamental constant like the mass of an electron or the permeability of free space.
The first mention of this binary solar system concept I could find was by a physicist in the 1980's - have you seen something that came earlier?