Isn't it likely that in the billions of years the earth has been around that it has seen its share of polar ice caps? I'd think so.
My point is that the earth will do what it wants when it wants, partly based on celestial influences and partly based on "it's just what it does."
My point is this: Take your 100,000 year span up to present. You say we have altered the environment for the worst. I say, find another 100,000 year period that has similar characteristicts at the start and for the majority of the span, and prove to me that this "theory" of harming the environment did not happen before.
Proof is what's lacking on either side. I say that no matter how careful we become (or careless, for that matter) the earth will retreat into its NORMAL cooling cycle of which will kick us into yet ANOTHER ice age.
One "major" volcanic eruption will more than nullify what mankind has polluted in the atmosphere. Not to mention that the earth will go through warming and cooling periods all on its own. What we may *think* is global warming is most likely the planet doing it's own warming.
We don't even know how the earth was born. We don't even know *with certainty* how old Mother Earth is. My point is that several periods within the Earth's lifespan, the global temperature could have been, and most likely was, TREMENDOUSLY warmer than it is now. I can't prove that though, just like global warming due to humans can't be proved.
If the Earth is 5.4 billion years old and ice cores are unreliably accurate to 100,000 years, can you honestly say that we have a "fairly good indication" of how the earth has evolved? Ice cores are not even a blip (.00185%) on earth's timeline, nor is the "damage" we've caused.
Except on the screen that tells you that you need to have IE, there's a link on the bottom to FEMA's accessibility page, which states they will follow section 508.
A system doesn't have to interact with financial data to fall under SOX. If a system is used to even influence financial data (making a financial decision based off of sales numbers, for instance) it falls under the SOX realm.
Main Entry:
medium
Pronunciation: 'mE-dE-&m
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mediums or media
Etymology: Latin, from neuter of medius middle
"media" is normally used in a singular context. "The media reported..." In this case "media" is a singular noun (hence: THE media). That's why that works. It's referring to a collective group. You can use both, but mediums works when you are talking about different means of communication.
Did you even read what you posted? You said he won't be allowed to work in the US on an F-1 visa. That statement is wrong. You may have meant to say "full-time" employment, but alas, you did not.
You also said that he would not be able to work outside of the university while he pursues his degree. That, again, is wrong. He can provided a few conditions are met. [see section 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(A)] He just won't be able to work full time.
I could say the same to you.
No you can't. I am right and your text is wrong. Plus you can work up to 20 hours a week in a university setting. (Again, you said incorrectly, ~10 hrs) [see section 214.2(f)(9)(i)]
He'll get a F-1 visa, meaning he won't be allowed to work in the US... You're not allowed to work outside the university while you pursue your degree.
No, that's not true. Don't post if you don't know for sure. I've worked alongside several F-1 aliens in a non-university setting.
He can work off-campus after one year of academic studies and provided he is in good academic standing. Work must be part time (<= 20 hrs a week) except during holidays and school vacations.
The water gets flung out thereby changing the moment of intertia at the equator which would slow the earth back down, no? After all, the torque is a set number, isn't it? The larger the moment of intertia, the harder it is to turn an object.
My main claim is that this is not a permanent speed up because I tend to think there are other factors at play which will cause the earth to slow back down. What about the atmosphere and it's shearing effects on the land? The friction was increased some when the earth suddenly sped up, no? Eventually, the atmosphere would stabilize again, sure, but still, it should've had some initial effect.
Keep reading my posts. As I said, I understand the figure skater example. But as speed increases, so does centripetal force. Take a ball on a string. The required tension (centripetal force) will increase the faster you swing the ball around by the string. If you cannot keep the required tension, the ball flies off at a tangent to the point at which tension was lost. If you do this with a bungee cord, the ball will still stay attached, although the faster you swing it, the larger the radius becomes.
So, I ask again, won't the increase in the earth's rotational speed "fling" the water away from the earth's center?
I get the whole idea behind the figure skater example. I'm more concerned with Newton's Third Law and how people use it to say the earth will speed up. The figure skater example doesn't work in this case because all of the mass of the skater is pulled in. In this case, the earth has things (water) which can react outward. (A skater's tutu would react outward as well, but the mass of said tutu is negligible.) Since the earth's mass is 2/3 water, you're telling me that the water won't get thrown out away from the center thereby slowing it back down? And I see your math equation, but don't really appreciate it as it's overly simplified.:) Regardless, isn't the inertia formula for a sphere (simplifying the earth's classification): I=.4mr^2? With that said, I believe that moving a mass outward (increasing radius) will have a greater effect on rotational speed that moving a mass inward (decreasing radius).
Actually, I envision the earth "bouncing" if you will, while the increased speed (if any) and the resulting increase in rotational inertia at the equator balance each other out. I wouldn't call this a "permanent" increase in speed. But then I'm not a physics guru.
Yeah, the more I think about this, I don't buy it. Isn't the mass of earth still the same? (That's a rhetorical question, btw.) And all things considered, (hypothetically) if the earth does speed up, won't the earth's water bodies increase in depth as the increase velocity throws the water away from the earth's center thereby negating the effect of the landmass moving closer to the earth's center?
One of my meteorology professors debunked this myth, of which I believe him. The earth's climate has always cyclically gone from warm to cold. It's just a matter of time until we start the turn to an "ice age."
This isn't "I don't know how to change the oil in my car". This is "Why should I have to pay extra for oil changes? I already paid thirty grand for this car, it should just work!"
Well, again, I disagree. Security isn't like a car. Security changes all of the time, requiring those who care to know to constantly work at keeping up with the latest security trends. Security will never "just work," which is why I believe it should be the security community (don't read that to be the Government though) that enforces the rules. Asking the general population to keep up with this stuff will never work. Ever.
Well, we agree to disagree. I don't expect my grandma to learn computer security. I don't think she should have to, either. Your stance is that the people must dictate security, and I think it should be the security community that dictate security.
Microsoft, among others, should have severe fines levied against them because of their inherently default insecure software and the millions of dollars it cost to fix the problem that could've been solved in the first place. The scope of the IE and Outlook holes a decade ago is quite a bit different in today's world. It like comparing apples to oranges.
That's just my opinion though... I just don't think it's right that we can expect the general public to know about security enough to be "secure" on the Internet. After all, many people don't know how to change the oil on their car... because they don't have to. I agree that it would be nice if they did know how to do it, but it's not expected of them.
I disagree. If you want the Internet to be all encompassing and for everybody, then you have to assume that the majority of users will be ignorant towards security. And hence, it is up for the hardware/software industry to think outside of the box to tackle the problems we are faced with. For instance, why should I be concerned with the Blaster vulnerability? It's not my fault Microcrap left that hole open...
Assuming that your user base will be "smart" is the wrong approach. Assume they will be dumb and try to come up with secure solutions that are appropriate. Outlook Express should be pulled from Microcrap's offering. That's not the user's problem for using what they think is legitimate software. It's Microsoft's. They have to hold up their end of the deal, you know, and distributing insecure software doesn't mean we need to educate users. We need to educate the businesses that drive the Internet.
That it's not the people's fault for thinking the software/hardware they are using *is* secure but really isn't.
It's the industry's fault for not pushing for tighter controls on the equipment that provides Internet access points.
I don't believe that people should be held accountable for knowing security inside and out. That's why they turn to the big guns of the industry to provide their hardware. "Hey, it says it's secure!"
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it likely that in the billions of years the earth has been around that it has seen its share of polar ice caps? I'd think so.
My point is that the earth will do what it wants when it wants, partly based on celestial influences and partly based on "it's just what it does."
My point is this: Take your 100,000 year span up to present. You say we have altered the environment for the worst. I say, find another 100,000 year period that has similar characteristicts at the start and for the majority of the span, and prove to me that this "theory" of harming the environment did not happen before.
Proof is what's lacking on either side. I say that no matter how careful we become (or careless, for that matter) the earth will retreat into its NORMAL cooling cycle of which will kick us into yet ANOTHER ice age.
One "major" volcanic eruption will more than nullify what mankind has polluted in the atmosphere. Not to mention that the earth will go through warming and cooling periods all on its own. What we may *think* is global warming is most likely the planet doing it's own warming.
We don't even know how the earth was born. We don't even know *with certainty* how old Mother Earth is. My point is that several periods within the Earth's lifespan, the global temperature could have been, and most likely was, TREMENDOUSLY warmer than it is now. I can't prove that though, just like global warming due to humans can't be proved.
Seriously?
If the Earth is 5.4 billion years old and ice cores are unreliably accurate to 100,000 years, can you honestly say that we have a "fairly good indication" of how the earth has evolved? Ice cores are not even a blip (.00185%) on earth's timeline, nor is the "damage" we've caused.
Yep, no kidding. It could be that this server is in charge of mailing out pages to IT support... That's one example.
Except on the screen that tells you that you need to have IE, there's a link on the bottom to FEMA's accessibility page, which states they will follow section 508.
This is not news. This functionality has been here since late 2003...
See Google's timeline...
It's DAYLIGHT SAVING time. No savings. Sheesh.
A system doesn't have to interact with financial data to fall under SOX. If a system is used to even influence financial data (making a financial decision based off of sales numbers, for instance) it falls under the SOX realm.
...what happens when my connection to my ISP goes down? Then what? I still wouldn't say that broadband is "reliable."
"media" is normally used in a singular context. "The media reported..." In this case "media" is a singular noun (hence: THE media). That's why that works. It's referring to a collective group. You can use both, but mediums works when you are talking about different means of communication.
How many of those 24 vulns for Red Hat were operating system specific?
Throw it to bugtraq if you want exposure and to get it noticed. Not Slashdot.
You also said that he would not be able to work outside of the university while he pursues his degree. That, again, is wrong. He can provided a few conditions are met. [see section 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(A)] He just won't be able to work full time.
No you can't. I am right and your text is wrong. Plus you can work up to 20 hours a week in a university setting. (Again, you said incorrectly, ~10 hrs) [see section 214.2(f)(9)(i)]
Phil
He can work off-campus after one year of academic studies and provided he is in good academic standing. Work must be part time (<= 20 hrs a week) except during holidays and school vacations.
Phil
The water gets flung out thereby changing the moment of intertia at the equator which would slow the earth back down, no? After all, the torque is a set number, isn't it? The larger the moment of intertia, the harder it is to turn an object.
My main claim is that this is not a permanent speed up because I tend to think there are other factors at play which will cause the earth to slow back down. What about the atmosphere and it's shearing effects on the land? The friction was increased some when the earth suddenly sped up, no? Eventually, the atmosphere would stabilize again, sure, but still, it should've had some initial effect.
Keep reading my posts. As I said, I understand the figure skater example. But as speed increases, so does centripetal force. Take a ball on a string. The required tension (centripetal force) will increase the faster you swing the ball around by the string. If you cannot keep the required tension, the ball flies off at a tangent to the point at which tension was lost. If you do this with a bungee cord, the ball will still stay attached, although the faster you swing it, the larger the radius becomes.
So, I ask again, won't the increase in the earth's rotational speed "fling" the water away from the earth's center?
Phil
I get the whole idea behind the figure skater example. I'm more concerned with Newton's Third Law and how people use it to say the earth will speed up. The figure skater example doesn't work in this case because all of the mass of the skater is pulled in. In this case, the earth has things (water) which can react outward. (A skater's tutu would react outward as well, but the mass of said tutu is negligible.) Since the earth's mass is 2/3 water, you're telling me that the water won't get thrown out away from the center thereby slowing it back down? And I see your math equation, but don't really appreciate it as it's overly simplified. :) Regardless, isn't the inertia formula for a sphere (simplifying the earth's classification): I=.4mr^2? With that said, I believe that moving a mass outward (increasing radius) will have a greater effect on rotational speed that moving a mass inward (decreasing radius).
Actually, I envision the earth "bouncing" if you will, while the increased speed (if any) and the resulting increase in rotational inertia at the equator balance each other out. I wouldn't call this a "permanent" increase in speed. But then I'm not a physics guru.
Phil
Yeah, the more I think about this, I don't buy it. Isn't the mass of earth still the same? (That's a rhetorical question, btw.) And all things considered, (hypothetically) if the earth does speed up, won't the earth's water bodies increase in depth as the increase velocity throws the water away from the earth's center thereby negating the effect of the landmass moving closer to the earth's center?
Phil
But if one pushes under the other, won't the one on top move away from the earth's center? So one moves closer while the other moves away???
Phil
One of my meteorology professors debunked this myth, of which I believe him. The earth's climate has always cyclically gone from warm to cold. It's just a matter of time until we start the turn to an "ice age."
I don't think it's even in the same plane as the street lamp. I think it's behind the lamp and in the water.
This isn't "I don't know how to change the oil in my car". This is "Why should I have to pay extra for oil changes? I already paid thirty grand for this car, it should just work!"
Well, again, I disagree. Security isn't like a car. Security changes all of the time, requiring those who care to know to constantly work at keeping up with the latest security trends. Security will never "just work," which is why I believe it should be the security community (don't read that to be the Government though) that enforces the rules. Asking the general population to keep up with this stuff will never work. Ever.
Phil
Well, we agree to disagree. I don't expect my grandma to learn computer security. I don't think she should have to, either. Your stance is that the people must dictate security, and I think it should be the security community that dictate security.
... because they don't have to. I agree that it would be nice if they did know how to do it, but it's not expected of them.
Microsoft, among others, should have severe fines levied against them because of their inherently default insecure software and the millions of dollars it cost to fix the problem that could've been solved in the first place. The scope of the IE and Outlook holes a decade ago is quite a bit different in today's world. It like comparing apples to oranges.
That's just my opinion though... I just don't think it's right that we can expect the general public to know about security enough to be "secure" on the Internet. After all, many people don't know how to change the oil on their car
Phil
I disagree. If you want the Internet to be all encompassing and for everybody, then you have to assume that the majority of users will be ignorant towards security. And hence, it is up for the hardware/software industry to think outside of the box to tackle the problems we are faced with. For instance, why should I be concerned with the Blaster vulnerability? It's not my fault Microcrap left that hole open...
Assuming that your user base will be "smart" is the wrong approach. Assume they will be dumb and try to come up with secure solutions that are appropriate. Outlook Express should be pulled from Microcrap's offering. That's not the user's problem for using what they think is legitimate software. It's Microsoft's. They have to hold up their end of the deal, you know, and distributing insecure software doesn't mean we need to educate users. We need to educate the businesses that drive the Internet.
Phil
That it's not the people's fault for thinking the software/hardware they are using *is* secure but really isn't.
It's the industry's fault for not pushing for tighter controls on the equipment that provides Internet access points.
I don't believe that people should be held accountable for knowing security inside and out. That's why they turn to the big guns of the industry to provide their hardware. "Hey, it says it's secure!"
Phil