That's another thing that's puzzled me a little with my inadequate knowledge of rocketry... (I am not a rocket scientist!) In space, yes you have no wind resistance or drag on the side of the vehicle, or underpressure vacuum on the bottom so by that I'd expect it to "perform better". (more acceleration for a given thrust) but there's no air behind you to "push off from". How do those two factors compare?
I'd expect that at low velocities, the push-off factor would be greater than the air resistance, but at higher speeds the air resistance would be the dominating factor?
The things that worried me though are (1) the lightening of the load as the fuel is consumed, and (2) the thinning of the atmosphere as the rocket ascends. Both of these things are going to increase acceleration if thrust remains constant.
Although it starts at 1.2g, (with 1.0g being standard eath gravity pull) it has to be rising constantly except where those two engines cut out. I just have no idea how fast it rises.
I wouldn't be even a little surprised if acceleration goes over 5g just before throttle-down.
The Merlins run on LOX too - otherwise thinning of the atmosphere would lower thrust and act as a counter-force.
I'm ashamed to say I didn't identify that quote right off the bat. Y'vonna wasn't it?
Even without remembering the ep, you could almost identify it just by the attitude. That had to be a fun role to act. That line wouldn't have worked for any other character on the show.
Awesome, simply awesome. Glad to see they passed the test, or at least didn't blow up. Hope they got some good test data. Ideally they were giving it some control feedback to make sure the gimbals etc that aim the rocket were all responding correctly, performing their orbital roll etc. Getting the most bang for the buck (without the bang!) since I'm sure this test cost a not-so-small fortune considering the fuel used.
As for the "why didn't it take off" question, it was pretty firmly fitted to the ground. Despite it's size and total impulse capacity, that's over a 3 minute span. It's not designed to lift more than itself and its payload, at a marginal acceleration. The thrust output is variable also, and can't be allowed to crush the payload with G-forces. Despite its massive size, it wasn't going to be going anywhere.
I'd be interested to know the power curve on the rocket. Most of the fuel is actually spent lifting the FUEL. From one viewpoint, the engine could be constant-thrust, and would accelerate slowly at first, and increase its acceleration as it consumed fuel and became lighter with the same thrust. Or it could back off the thrust as it got lighter, to prevent the g-forces from acceleration from becoming too great for the vehicle or its payload. I'm sure the power-to-weight-ratio could get really high as it nears the end of its firing if it were left at maximum thrust. Anyone happen to know the power curve or acceleration curve on ascent? I thought I read somewhere they try to keep the g-forces under 8g, and not for too long of a period of time, at least for crew.
correct me if I'm wrong here, but the idea is you can take a piece of GPL'd software, modify it, and add your own non GPL ("closed source") software to create a package, and sell the package, so long as you properly cite all GPL'd software in your package, and offer source code to any of the GPL'd software you've modified?
afaik, Apple has followed all these rules? This is the basis of how GPL'd software is compatible with business.
It's annoying to see all the people getting their panties in a bunch because Apple isn't open-sourcing their entire package. You can't expect that from a business. The only time you'll get that is when they've found some other way to make money besides selling their package. (like selling support, or selling hardware... which Apple probably could make money selling only their hardware, but why should they, when people are willing to buy their OS also?)
Here in Iowa we get our water from limestone-based aquafers and sand wells. Water's almost crunchy. I just got done using an entire gallon of vinegar to remove the lime from my bathtub, and I have to soak the tap filters several times a year or the screens solidify.
Though once you get used to drinking "real water", bottled water is almost nasty tasting. It's hard to describe... it's just like drinking water from a tap at someone's house that has a water conditioner. It almost has a soapy or dulling/flat taste to it. There's just something a whole lot more refreshing drinking ice cold water that has some mineral content to it.
I don't like drinking the water when I travel. Water that's either bottled, conditioned, or reclaimed out of the local river and gone through intense filtering. I need to start packing my own water when I go on vacation...
not sure what the diff between this and that is, but this one says it's not useful below 30% rel humidity. Not useful in the desert. Not during the daytime anyway. Maybe at night. There's a lot of critters in the desert that get all of their moisture by licking up the morning dew.
Over time we've seen our business model eroding as other open source projects produce free versions of the same extensions and utilities that are our bread and butter. Something that was worth $5K last year is suddenly worth $0 because the free version is just as good as the paid. This same cycle is obviously having an impact on pure-play commercial software vendors. Is open source ultimately a race to zero? In ten years will there be any cost associated with commodity (non-custom) software?
Agree with parent. To survive in today's software market, you can't just invent something good and collect on it for the next 50 years. Today's software industry is about two words: updates and support.
You can always stay a step ahead of open source in both of these arenas, and there are an abundance of business models that demonstrate this. Red Hat is the first one that comes immediately to mind.
The whole issue is similar to the sad state of affairs in the copyright and patent arenas today. People trying to make money today and tomorrow on the work they do today. Lets face it, the world is "so what have you done for me lately?" Evolve with this or die out. If you want to make money tomorrow, you'd better be ready to work for it tomorrow too.
'If the application gets people to slow down, I think it's generally considered to be a good thing,' said Atkinson
It gets them to slow down when there's a speed trap because they want to avoid the high probability of a ticket.
BUT, it also gives them the confidence to speed more when they don't believe there's a speed trap.
So it works both ways: It helps increase the "deterrent factor" of the speed traps, but lowers the overall effectiveness of discouraging speeding in general, in the process.
In the end it's probably about a wash for changing the amount of speeding going on. The only thing that's changing is the money that was going to speeding tickets is now going to the authors of the app. And of course since that's what's really important isn't it, we've gotta put a stop to it don'cha know?
being locked down has nothing to do with it. relying on a central server for gameplay when they go under is the problem. Such is the nature of the beast.
What's needed is proper education of jurors that they are that sanity check.
Unfortunately that's pretty much up to the judge. The judge instructs the jurors as to how to do their job.
In the end, the judge seems to be the sanity check, because they decide not the guilt, but the penalty for being found guilty. (within the guidelines of what law was broken)
reading and writing is not the issue. It's cake on pretty much any platform to outright disable thumb drives on a machine. (which is probably what should be done here anyway, but I digress)
The issue at this point in the thread is with execute access. What's the magic HKEY for that they need to know?
nothing new here unfortunately . I've long since grown tired of seeing people do things that are perhaps immoral, but not illegal, only to see some unrelated, irrelevant law bent in an attempt to make what they did illegal.
The "bad laws" are the problem here. Too many new laws are hitting the books either with little care taken to limit their scope, or to outright ignore limitations. Loopholes and overly broad definitions are woven in, under the guise that something in the legal machine will act as a sanity-check and "but no one would ever abuse the law". I'm not sure if they're being naive, or doing it on purpose. I know I've long since learned, anything that can be abused, will be abused eventually. It always works that way. Always has, always will. Make something open to abuse, and it will get abused, usually sooner than you expect.
When you make a law with the hopes that some sanity check will prevent abuse, such as interpretation of a vaugity in the law by a judge, you'll find that some judges are naive, some judges have an agenda, and some parties have bottomless wallets to tilt the balances in their favor. The latter of the three being the major problem lately. You can never rely on "the system" only interpreting a law the "correct" way. Either you spell it out, or may as well not even bother. Making a vague law is worse than making no law at all, because when you make a vague law, you transform a situation from being undefined, to being possibly legal or possibly illegal, depending on the day of the week.
The "before" picture doesn't look like a 1st gen photo. Looks like they obtained the original via a lossy format, like a camera phone or something of that sort. Heavy artifacting. Compare her hair in the two pictures for the most striking difference. So probably the only real change made was alteration of the background.
So what happens if the "hacked" firmware switches Apple's key with, say, the PS3's? Would Sony be stuck?
Part of their agreement to get a key is certain steps must be taken by the vendors when writing their firmware and making their hardware, to make the private key difficult to extract. Any vendor that "loses control" over their key simply requests another one. Sony revokes their old key, causing all new disks to not work with the old firmware. The vendor pushes a firmware update to their players (either by download/usb thumb drive or internet download) to get the new key which is embedded in the new firmware. This is why practically all bluray players have internet connections. It's not a convenience for you so much as it is to make it possible and practical for vendors to recover from getting their key revoked by Sony. No vendor wants their vendor key publicized, but they have to take that into account. If it does get released, and you don't have a way to update all your customers after you get a new key, you've essentially "bricked" all your previously sold units. (at least in the eyes of the consumer, being unable to play new content) And that may be enough RMAs to pull you under.
In your example, if someone managed to extract the PS3's key and embed it in a free bluray ripping software, (unlikely because they "wrote the book" on steps you should take to protect it, but certainly not impossible) they would simply revoke their own key and push a software update to your PS3, required for viewing new movies, like any other vendor.
The only way to beat sony at this game is to reverse engineer or otherwise break the encryption to recover en-masse the entire set of vendor private keys. If that list were to be made public, then Sony would have two options. (1) revoke ALL keys and start from scratch, (requiring all bluray players in the world to receive a firmware update) or (2) give up on it. Right now if a key is compromised, they have hundreds (thousands?) of as yet unassigned vendor keys in the dictionary on every disc being made, so revoking one and handing out another is not a problem because it's already on all the existing discs. But if you have to start over, it makes a bit of a mess because all the old discs only have the old dictionary, and so players would need to have two vendor keys, an old one to play old discs, and a new one to play new discs. I suppose they wouldn't mind that all so much but it may be enough deterrent to make them consider option (2).
That's why the vendors have to sign the agreement and take certain steps to protect their keys. There's a limited number of vendor keys available to be assigned from the start. (anyone happen to know the exact number?) So they can't just go revoking keys every week, they'd run out too soon.
I've read some recent information about "processing keys" being discovered, I don't know if that means someone has found a way to break the entire dictionary. Being able to break the entire dictionary is of course the best thing to see happen. It doesn't bring the whole system crashing down, but drags it down to the effectiveness that is presently on DVDs. (which is essentially non existent now with apps like Mac The Ripper and Handbrake out and about) - meaning open apps can be written to break any disc currently in production.
Ya I guess I am a bit behind the times here. Not sure if I'm getting this right but it appears that the "processing key" is the ONE key that encrypts the content of any bluray disc. The title key isn't actually required to decrypt the content if you know the processing key. Gee that stinks for them I guess. Makes pretty much all of the above a moot point. I'm surprised the bluray ripping apps haven't been popping up like dandelions already. Guess not enough people have bluray drives in their computers yet. Funny how THAT is what's causing this to not hit the fan very fast.
The way that works (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that each title has a "title key" (randomly generated exclusively for that release) that is used to encrypt the content.
Sony has created a set of "vendor keys", lets say 1000 of them, to give out to anyone that wants to make a bluray player and agrees to play by their rules.
When a movie is pressed to bluray, the movie's titlekey is encrypted separately 1000 times, once for each vendor key, and is stored on the disc in a title key dictionary. As long as you know at least one vendor key, you can retrieve the title key. Now after apple signs on the dotted DMCA line, they are assigned and given one of the vendor keys. (lets say it's key #256) 256's private key is placed on the bluray player firmware apple ships with. The player uses that key to decrypt copy #256 of the title key from the title key dictionary on the disc. It can't decrypt any of the other 999 copes since it only has private key for #256.
Lets say the firmware is hacked.
Once sony figures out that key #256 is being used by a hacked player, they "revoke" it. This means that every title released after this point will no longer have an entry in the title key dictionary for key # 256. So anyone with an older apple bluray player will not be able to view the new movie because it cannot get the title key from the disc.
Every disc they have that they bought up to the point of revocation will continue to work indefinitely on the older player, because the old discs will all still have a title key in position 256 in their title key dictionary.
At that point if apple wants to get back into the game, the RIAA will force them to strengthen the security in their player firmware to make it more difficult to hack, before they give them a new vendor key. Apple will push this out as a firmware update and once again all their bluray players will work with all titles, old and new.
If it gets hacked again, it's possible sony will just say too bad so sad and refuse to give them another key regardless of what apple is willing to do. At that point all the players with the vulnerable firmware will cease forever to work with new releases.
I know I'm missing several layers of other nasties such as the bluray player vm, but this is the part that's relevant here. Sony can't remotely brick or otherwise damage your bluray player, and cannot prevent it from being able to play discs that it already can play. They can only prevent your player from working on discs released after they decide to drop the hammer.
tho the bag was pushed ever so slightly toward the earth. This lowers its orbit. There's nothing to slow the bag down so it will continue toward the earth at that speed. Considering its orbital speed is that of the astronaut, getting into a lower orbit with the same velocity will probably cause it to acquire an elliptical orbit.
Unless it's ellipse crosses the earth, which is very likely judging from that release, in which case it'll de-orbit itself sometime in the near future. Maybe days, maybe months, I have no idea. Things like this progress exponentially, so it's hard to judge exactly when it will start to plummet based on initial release.
What cracks me up is the posters speculating on them just waiting for the shuttle to make one orbit to just reach out and grab it. That's so wrong for so many reasons I don't know where to start.
There is still atmosphere at those elevations. Very LITTLE of it, but it's there, and will de-orbit objects over time. May take a decade or more but it'll happen. Obviously the farther you get up the less there is of it. Considering the ridiculous speed the shuttle is orbiting at, I assume the amount of atmosphere up there is extremely small.
Historically, the way we've discovered what part of the brain does what first is by running into someone with an abnormal part of their brain. The visual cortex, hippocampus, etc. So far though, no one has shown up that lacks consciousness.
Now I suppose that would be by a lot of definitions "brain dead", since consciousness is akin to being awake or dreaming, but still we haven't ran into someone that for example, had a brain tumor or took a nailgun to the head that hit a key area that put their lights out for good, on a consistent basis for that area of the brain.
Now not every location in the brain is highly localized. For example, the area of the motor cortex that controls speech is known, roughly, but it varies slightly from person to person. It's likely that consciousness is a highly distributed function of the brain. That's going to make it a lot harder to study.
I think the whole idea of referring to consciousness as an "emergent property" boils down to our not understanding what causes it, multiplied by it seeming to require a highly complex system to support in the first place.
100 years ago if you'd have presented a mathematician with a laptop with Mathematica loaded on it, he'd probably consider it sentient.
My personal take on it is that consciousness is the brain constantly considering a myriad of possibilities, trying to determine their outcome/impact, in an effort to shape future events in a desirable way by adjusting our actions to try to achieve those outcomes. This is a brute force search, and requires the insanely massive parallelism the brain is designed for. Until we can build a system capable of parallelism on that level, we will not have a "conscious" machine. Everything else before that is a fake, trying to cheat that basic requirement by using shortcuts through linear processing. Simple organisms we don't consider sentient behave exactly as we'd expect a linear system to, directly reacting in a predictable way to provided stimulus, with no ability to learn. Learning is the process of tweaking the values used to consider past events, in order to alter present behavior, to achieve a more desirable outcome in the future. Learning and consciousness go hand in hand.
You can see the middleground in a lot of less complex animals. Give a reasonably advanced animal a tool and a reward achievable by proper use of the tool, and they will play with the tool, experimenting with different way to use it until they get lucky and get the reward. Then it quickly becomes easier and easier for them because they've learned to use the tool. That's the "considering the possibilities" done live and with the tool, which may be most of what people consider "thinking" or "consciousness". I believe what "separates us from them" is that we can do this consideration without having the tool in hand. We can imagine future use of the tool and work out in advance what we need to do with it, or to at least select the proper tool in advance. If you give a monkey a toolbox full of tools it may take them some time experimenting to figure out which tool is the right one to loosen the screw to open the box with the banana in it. Maybe this "imagination" is a third ingredient?
Even after we get the parallelism problem solved, there's the matter of the wiring. Evolution has lead brains to be preprogramed to do both the learning and the consideration, and that may turn out to be a tough system to figure out and duplicate. Or it may be pathetically simple. Best guess here is we will get parallelism figured out, then learning, and the last hurdle will be the imagination behavior.
The TSA has not publicly said whether it has caught a terrorist through the program
That actually speaks volumes. You can bet your last penny that if they had caught anyone they could paint as a "terrorist", it'd be like their poster child and would be all over the media, "see, THIS is why you need us! This is why we NEED to make flying total hell and have you take off your shoes and strip down at the airport every time!"
Since we haven't seen any examples, it's very safe to assume there are none.
I'm sure it'll happen eventually. Either they''ll genuinely identify a terrorist, or will get lucky. Then the media will have a field day and we'll really be stuck with it. Here's to hoping they don't get lucky in time before enough public inertia gathers to dump them on the curb.
in most cases, computer booting does not warrant being called work
The way I look at it is I'm being paid for my time. Time that I can't be off doing something I want to do. How much I get paid for my time of course depends on what I can accomplish with the time they are buying from me.
But for ME, time spent sitting idle at work, time that my employer is requiring me to be there, is time I should be paid for. How many people would be OK with their boss saying hey how about you come in an hour early and leave an hour late starting tomorrow? Not on the clock or anything, I just want you to BE here. You don't have to work. But it's going to be a new requirement around here.
Sounds silly and of course you can't find anyone that would be OK with that, but that's just this issue taken to a little of an extreme to prove a point. Your time is your time. If they want you to give some of it up, they better be paying for it. If it took me 15 minutes to get the computer booted up to punch in, and after I punched out I was required to spend another 15 in the office waiting for it to shut down, you can bet I'd be having a talk with my manager about compensation for my lost 65 hrs of pay a year. That's a week and a half of paycheck lost a year. Not really lost, time TAKEN by your employer without compensation.
Little stuff like that adds up. Don't let them fool you by saying oh it's only 15 minutes, you don't mind that do you? That's cheating me, pure and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
rockets perform better in a vacuum
That's another thing that's puzzled me a little with my inadequate knowledge of rocketry... (I am not a rocket scientist!) In space, yes you have no wind resistance or drag on the side of the vehicle, or underpressure vacuum on the bottom so by that I'd expect it to "perform better". (more acceleration for a given thrust) but there's no air behind you to "push off from". How do those two factors compare?
I'd expect that at low velocities, the push-off factor would be greater than the air resistance, but at higher speeds the air resistance would be the dominating factor?
The things that worried me though are (1) the lightening of the load as the fuel is consumed, and (2) the thinning of the atmosphere as the rocket ascends. Both of these things are going to increase acceleration if thrust remains constant.
Although it starts at 1.2g, (with 1.0g being standard eath gravity pull) it has to be rising constantly except where those two engines cut out. I just have no idea how fast it rises.
I wouldn't be even a little surprised if acceleration goes over 5g just before throttle-down.
The Merlins run on LOX too - otherwise thinning of the atmosphere would lower thrust and act as a counter-force.
I'm ashamed to say I didn't identify that quote right off the bat. Y'vonna wasn't it?
Even without remembering the ep, you could almost identify it just by the attitude. That had to be a fun role to act. That line wouldn't have worked for any other character on the show.
Awesome, simply awesome. Glad to see they passed the test, or at least didn't blow up. Hope they got some good test data. Ideally they were giving it some control feedback to make sure the gimbals etc that aim the rocket were all responding correctly, performing their orbital roll etc. Getting the most bang for the buck (without the bang!) since I'm sure this test cost a not-so-small fortune considering the fuel used.
As for the "why didn't it take off" question, it was pretty firmly fitted to the ground. Despite it's size and total impulse capacity, that's over a 3 minute span. It's not designed to lift more than itself and its payload, at a marginal acceleration. The thrust output is variable also, and can't be allowed to crush the payload with G-forces. Despite its massive size, it wasn't going to be going anywhere.
I'd be interested to know the power curve on the rocket. Most of the fuel is actually spent lifting the FUEL. From one viewpoint, the engine could be constant-thrust, and would accelerate slowly at first, and increase its acceleration as it consumed fuel and became lighter with the same thrust. Or it could back off the thrust as it got lighter, to prevent the g-forces from acceleration from becoming too great for the vehicle or its payload. I'm sure the power-to-weight-ratio could get really high as it nears the end of its firing if it were left at maximum thrust. Anyone happen to know the power curve or acceleration curve on ascent? I thought I read somewhere they try to keep the g-forces under 8g, and not for too long of a period of time, at least for crew.
correct me if I'm wrong here, but the idea is you can take a piece of GPL'd software, modify it, and add your own non GPL ("closed source") software to create a package, and sell the package, so long as you properly cite all GPL'd software in your package, and offer source code to any of the GPL'd software you've modified?
afaik, Apple has followed all these rules? This is the basis of how GPL'd software is compatible with business.
It's annoying to see all the people getting their panties in a bunch because Apple isn't open-sourcing their entire package. You can't expect that from a business. The only time you'll get that is when they've found some other way to make money besides selling their package. (like selling support, or selling hardware... which Apple probably could make money selling only their hardware, but why should they, when people are willing to buy their OS also?)
Here in Iowa we get our water from limestone-based aquafers and sand wells. Water's almost crunchy. I just got done using an entire gallon of vinegar to remove the lime from my bathtub, and I have to soak the tap filters several times a year or the screens solidify.
Though once you get used to drinking "real water", bottled water is almost nasty tasting. It's hard to describe... it's just like drinking water from a tap at someone's house that has a water conditioner. It almost has a soapy or dulling/flat taste to it. There's just something a whole lot more refreshing drinking ice cold water that has some mineral content to it.
I don't like drinking the water when I travel. Water that's either bottled, conditioned, or reclaimed out of the local river and gone through intense filtering. I need to start packing my own water when I go on vacation...
not sure what the diff between this and that is, but this one says it's not useful below 30% rel humidity. Not useful in the desert. Not during the daytime anyway. Maybe at night. There's a lot of critters in the desert that get all of their moisture by licking up the morning dew.
Over time we've seen our business model eroding as other open source projects produce free versions of the same extensions and utilities that are our bread and butter. Something that was worth $5K last year is suddenly worth $0 because the free version is just as good as the paid. This same cycle is obviously having an impact on pure-play commercial software vendors. Is open source ultimately a race to zero? In ten years will there be any cost associated with commodity (non-custom) software?
Agree with parent. To survive in today's software market, you can't just invent something good and collect on it for the next 50 years. Today's software industry is about two words: updates and support.
You can always stay a step ahead of open source in both of these arenas, and there are an abundance of business models that demonstrate this. Red Hat is the first one that comes immediately to mind.
The whole issue is similar to the sad state of affairs in the copyright and patent arenas today. People trying to make money today and tomorrow on the work they do today. Lets face it, the world is "so what have you done for me lately?" Evolve with this or die out. If you want to make money tomorrow, you'd better be ready to work for it tomorrow too.
'If the application gets people to slow down, I think it's generally considered to be a good thing,' said Atkinson
It gets them to slow down when there's a speed trap because they want to avoid the high probability of a ticket.
BUT, it also gives them the confidence to speed more when they don't believe there's a speed trap.
So it works both ways: It helps increase the "deterrent factor" of the speed traps, but lowers the overall effectiveness of discouraging speeding in general, in the process.
In the end it's probably about a wash for changing the amount of speeding going on. The only thing that's changing is the money that was going to speeding tickets is now going to the authors of the app. And of course since that's what's really important isn't it, we've gotta put a stop to it don'cha know?
being locked down has nothing to do with it. relying on a central server for gameplay when they go under is the problem. Such is the nature of the beast.
What's needed is proper education of jurors that they are that sanity check.
Unfortunately that's pretty much up to the judge. The judge instructs the jurors as to how to do their job.
In the end, the judge seems to be the sanity check, because they decide not the guilt, but the penalty for being found guilty. (within the guidelines of what law was broken)
reading and writing is not the issue. It's cake on pretty much any platform to outright disable thumb drives on a machine. (which is probably what should be done here anyway, but I digress)
The issue at this point in the thread is with execute access. What's the magic HKEY for that they need to know?
nothing new here unfortunately . I've long since grown tired of seeing people do things that are perhaps immoral, but not illegal, only to see some unrelated, irrelevant law bent in an attempt to make what they did illegal.
The "bad laws" are the problem here. Too many new laws are hitting the books either with little care taken to limit their scope, or to outright ignore limitations. Loopholes and overly broad definitions are woven in, under the guise that something in the legal machine will act as a sanity-check and "but no one would ever abuse the law". I'm not sure if they're being naive, or doing it on purpose. I know I've long since learned, anything that can be abused, will be abused eventually. It always works that way. Always has, always will. Make something open to abuse, and it will get abused, usually sooner than you expect.
When you make a law with the hopes that some sanity check will prevent abuse, such as interpretation of a vaugity in the law by a judge, you'll find that some judges are naive, some judges have an agenda, and some parties have bottomless wallets to tilt the balances in their favor. The latter of the three being the major problem lately. You can never rely on "the system" only interpreting a law the "correct" way. Either you spell it out, or may as well not even bother. Making a vague law is worse than making no law at all, because when you make a vague law, you transform a situation from being undefined, to being possibly legal or possibly illegal, depending on the day of the week.
The "before" picture doesn't look like a 1st gen photo. Looks like they obtained the original via a lossy format, like a camera phone or something of that sort. Heavy artifacting. Compare her hair in the two pictures for the most striking difference. So probably the only real change made was alteration of the background.
spiders don't eat the exoskeleton of their food. there would be an empty spider shell in the cage if one spider had eaten the other.
Though most spiders are cannibals and will eat one another if food is scarce. (or just plain kill each other to limit competition)
I prefer to FEEDBEEF
So what happens if the "hacked" firmware switches Apple's key with, say, the PS3's? Would Sony be stuck?
Part of their agreement to get a key is certain steps must be taken by the vendors when writing their firmware and making their hardware, to make the private key difficult to extract. Any vendor that "loses control" over their key simply requests another one. Sony revokes their old key, causing all new disks to not work with the old firmware. The vendor pushes a firmware update to their players (either by download/usb thumb drive or internet download) to get the new key which is embedded in the new firmware. This is why practically all bluray players have internet connections. It's not a convenience for you so much as it is to make it possible and practical for vendors to recover from getting their key revoked by Sony. No vendor wants their vendor key publicized, but they have to take that into account. If it does get released, and you don't have a way to update all your customers after you get a new key, you've essentially "bricked" all your previously sold units. (at least in the eyes of the consumer, being unable to play new content) And that may be enough RMAs to pull you under.
In your example, if someone managed to extract the PS3's key and embed it in a free bluray ripping software, (unlikely because they "wrote the book" on steps you should take to protect it, but certainly not impossible) they would simply revoke their own key and push a software update to your PS3, required for viewing new movies, like any other vendor.
The only way to beat sony at this game is to reverse engineer or otherwise break the encryption to recover en-masse the entire set of vendor private keys. If that list were to be made public, then Sony would have two options. (1) revoke ALL keys and start from scratch, (requiring all bluray players in the world to receive a firmware update) or (2) give up on it. Right now if a key is compromised, they have hundreds (thousands?) of as yet unassigned vendor keys in the dictionary on every disc being made, so revoking one and handing out another is not a problem because it's already on all the existing discs. But if you have to start over, it makes a bit of a mess because all the old discs only have the old dictionary, and so players would need to have two vendor keys, an old one to play old discs, and a new one to play new discs. I suppose they wouldn't mind that all so much but it may be enough deterrent to make them consider option (2).
That's why the vendors have to sign the agreement and take certain steps to protect their keys. There's a limited number of vendor keys available to be assigned from the start. (anyone happen to know the exact number?) So they can't just go revoking keys every week, they'd run out too soon.
I've read some recent information about "processing keys" being discovered, I don't know if that means someone has found a way to break the entire dictionary. Being able to break the entire dictionary is of course the best thing to see happen. It doesn't bring the whole system crashing down, but drags it down to the effectiveness that is presently on DVDs. (which is essentially non existent now with apps like Mac The Ripper and Handbrake out and about) - meaning open apps can be written to break any disc currently in production.
Ya I guess I am a bit behind the times here. Not sure if I'm getting this right but it appears that the "processing key" is the ONE key that encrypts the content of any bluray disc. The title key isn't actually required to decrypt the content if you know the processing key. Gee that stinks for them I guess. Makes pretty much all of the above a moot point. I'm surprised the bluray ripping apps haven't been popping up like dandelions already. Guess not enough people have bluray drives in their computers yet. Funny how THAT is what's causing this to not hit the fan very fast.
The way that works (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that each title has a "title key" (randomly generated exclusively for that release) that is used to encrypt the content.
Sony has created a set of "vendor keys", lets say 1000 of them, to give out to anyone that wants to make a bluray player and agrees to play by their rules.
When a movie is pressed to bluray, the movie's titlekey is encrypted separately 1000 times, once for each vendor key, and is stored on the disc in a title key dictionary. As long as you know at least one vendor key, you can retrieve the title key. Now after apple signs on the dotted DMCA line, they are assigned and given one of the vendor keys. (lets say it's key #256) 256's private key is placed on the bluray player firmware apple ships with. The player uses that key to decrypt copy #256 of the title key from the title key dictionary on the disc. It can't decrypt any of the other 999 copes since it only has private key for #256.
Lets say the firmware is hacked.
Once sony figures out that key #256 is being used by a hacked player, they "revoke" it. This means that every title released after this point will no longer have an entry in the title key dictionary for key # 256. So anyone with an older apple bluray player will not be able to view the new movie because it cannot get the title key from the disc.
Every disc they have that they bought up to the point of revocation will continue to work indefinitely on the older player, because the old discs will all still have a title key in position 256 in their title key dictionary.
At that point if apple wants to get back into the game, the RIAA will force them to strengthen the security in their player firmware to make it more difficult to hack, before they give them a new vendor key. Apple will push this out as a firmware update and once again all their bluray players will work with all titles, old and new.
If it gets hacked again, it's possible sony will just say too bad so sad and refuse to give them another key regardless of what apple is willing to do. At that point all the players with the vulnerable firmware will cease forever to work with new releases.
I know I'm missing several layers of other nasties such as the bluray player vm, but this is the part that's relevant here. Sony can't remotely brick or otherwise damage your bluray player, and cannot prevent it from being able to play discs that it already can play. They can only prevent your player from working on discs released after they decide to drop the hammer.
tho the bag was pushed ever so slightly toward the earth. This lowers its orbit. There's nothing to slow the bag down so it will continue toward the earth at that speed. Considering its orbital speed is that of the astronaut, getting into a lower orbit with the same velocity will probably cause it to acquire an elliptical orbit.
Unless it's ellipse crosses the earth, which is very likely judging from that release, in which case it'll de-orbit itself sometime in the near future. Maybe days, maybe months, I have no idea. Things like this progress exponentially, so it's hard to judge exactly when it will start to plummet based on initial release.
What cracks me up is the posters speculating on them just waiting for the shuttle to make one orbit to just reach out and grab it. That's so wrong for so many reasons I don't know where to start.
There is still atmosphere at those elevations. Very LITTLE of it, but it's there, and will de-orbit objects over time. May take a decade or more but it'll happen. Obviously the farther you get up the less there is of it. Considering the ridiculous speed the shuttle is orbiting at, I assume the amount of atmosphere up there is extremely small.
Historically, the way we've discovered what part of the brain does what first is by running into someone with an abnormal part of their brain. The visual cortex, hippocampus, etc. So far though, no one has shown up that lacks consciousness.
Now I suppose that would be by a lot of definitions "brain dead", since consciousness is akin to being awake or dreaming, but still we haven't ran into someone that for example, had a brain tumor or took a nailgun to the head that hit a key area that put their lights out for good, on a consistent basis for that area of the brain.
Now not every location in the brain is highly localized. For example, the area of the motor cortex that controls speech is known, roughly, but it varies slightly from person to person. It's likely that consciousness is a highly distributed function of the brain. That's going to make it a lot harder to study.
I think the whole idea of referring to consciousness as an "emergent property" boils down to our not understanding what causes it, multiplied by it seeming to require a highly complex system to support in the first place.
100 years ago if you'd have presented a mathematician with a laptop with Mathematica loaded on it, he'd probably consider it sentient.
My personal take on it is that consciousness is the brain constantly considering a myriad of possibilities, trying to determine their outcome/impact, in an effort to shape future events in a desirable way by adjusting our actions to try to achieve those outcomes. This is a brute force search, and requires the insanely massive parallelism the brain is designed for. Until we can build a system capable of parallelism on that level, we will not have a "conscious" machine. Everything else before that is a fake, trying to cheat that basic requirement by using shortcuts through linear processing. Simple organisms we don't consider sentient behave exactly as we'd expect a linear system to, directly reacting in a predictable way to provided stimulus, with no ability to learn. Learning is the process of tweaking the values used to consider past events, in order to alter present behavior, to achieve a more desirable outcome in the future. Learning and consciousness go hand in hand.
You can see the middleground in a lot of less complex animals. Give a reasonably advanced animal a tool and a reward achievable by proper use of the tool, and they will play with the tool, experimenting with different way to use it until they get lucky and get the reward. Then it quickly becomes easier and easier for them because they've learned to use the tool. That's the "considering the possibilities" done live and with the tool, which may be most of what people consider "thinking" or "consciousness". I believe what "separates us from them" is that we can do this consideration without having the tool in hand. We can imagine future use of the tool and work out in advance what we need to do with it, or to at least select the proper tool in advance. If you give a monkey a toolbox full of tools it may take them some time experimenting to figure out which tool is the right one to loosen the screw to open the box with the banana in it. Maybe this "imagination" is a third ingredient?
Even after we get the parallelism problem solved, there's the matter of the wiring. Evolution has lead brains to be preprogramed to do both the learning and the consideration, and that may turn out to be a tough system to figure out and duplicate. Or it may be pathetically simple. Best guess here is we will get parallelism figured out, then learning, and the last hurdle will be the imagination behavior.
The TSA has not publicly said whether it has caught a terrorist through the program
That actually speaks volumes. You can bet your last penny that if they had caught anyone they could paint as a "terrorist", it'd be like their poster child and would be all over the media, "see, THIS is why you need us! This is why we NEED to make flying total hell and have you take off your shoes and strip down at the airport every time!"
Since we haven't seen any examples, it's very safe to assume there are none.
I'm sure it'll happen eventually. Either they''ll genuinely identify a terrorist, or will get lucky. Then the media will have a field day and we'll really be stuck with it. Here's to hoping they don't get lucky in time before enough public inertia gathers to dump them on the curb.
in most cases, computer booting does not warrant being called work
The way I look at it is I'm being paid for my time. Time that I can't be off doing something I want to do. How much I get paid for my time of course depends on what I can accomplish with the time they are buying from me.
But for ME, time spent sitting idle at work, time that my employer is requiring me to be there, is time I should be paid for. How many people would be OK with their boss saying hey how about you come in an hour early and leave an hour late starting tomorrow? Not on the clock or anything, I just want you to BE here. You don't have to work. But it's going to be a new requirement around here.
Sounds silly and of course you can't find anyone that would be OK with that, but that's just this issue taken to a little of an extreme to prove a point. Your time is your time. If they want you to give some of it up, they better be paying for it. If it took me 15 minutes to get the computer booted up to punch in, and after I punched out I was required to spend another 15 in the office waiting for it to shut down, you can bet I'd be having a talk with my manager about compensation for my lost 65 hrs of pay a year. That's a week and a half of paycheck lost a year. Not really lost, time TAKEN by your employer without compensation.
Little stuff like that adds up. Don't let them fool you by saying oh it's only 15 minutes, you don't mind that do you? That's cheating me, pure and simple.
Antitrust regulators in the U.S. have tended to focus on harm to consumers as opposed to competitors.
he said that like there's something wrong with that.
The government protecting the people instead of the businesses. Imagine that!
Idiot. This is one of the major reasons why this country has gotten so screwed up.
what it means is that if you have a higher EAL number, it means you definitely have more money, and possibly are more secure.