I think the problem is that we've seen over time many web based jail breaks of iPhones. Just visit a URL, and it breaks your phone's security to the root level. So if you can combine man-in-the-middle with a jailbreak style hack, you can redirect everyone's safari to your web site and p0wn everyone's iPhone in the city. Not easy to pull off, but potentially devastating to large numbers of users if you can.
Not only that, but I would have thought that if software replaced something that already exists in mechanical form, it could hardly be innovative. Rather it would be obvious.
I am hereby setting up a crowd funded effort to bomb and destroy this radio dish. I don't want any aliens appearing on my front doorstep. We've all seen the movies, this never ends well.
Seriously though, it seems to me incredibly arrogant and self centred for a private group of people to try and contact aliens, because the potential results of aliens turning up could be catastrophic, and that's a decision that all mankind should make together, not some private group.
The only reason I'm not concerned is that I think this has precisely a zero point zero chance of success.
Actually, I thought the route is on the southern border, so it doesn't actually cut it in half at all. The Panama canal cuts the country in half, and it doesn't seem to be a big problem.
" nobody will argue that it is more efficient to ship from LA to NY via ship instead of rail. "
I'm not in a position to do the math, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is more efficient in some circumstances. A ship can move 10,000 containers. I'm guessing that is the equivilent 100+ trains.
If you've got a container of stuff from China that needs distributing all over the US, then sure it makes sense to get it from LA. But if its purely for the east coast, then its not so clear.
Considering how much it cost to build a tunnel under the English channel, making a tunnel big enough for a 250,000 ton ship sounds prohibitively expensive.
I would have thought the fastest browser was the most efficient, thereby making the fastest browser also the most efficient in power. That makes this study very hard to believe.
" Here is a surprise for you: when a reactor is defueled, the containment is often left open to the outside environment"
Well that's not a great idea since insects, birds etc can fly in and out and get contaminated. And since 1 microgram of plutonium if inhaled is fatal, that's a genuine health hazard.
Well, exactly. You throw computations resources to find out if the conjecture is interesting. If you try brute forcing an exception and fail, the you've found something interesting.
The agency model for Apple doesn't prevent Amazon from negotiating a different wholesale price to Apple. It's just that once they've done so, if they choose to sell it at a lower markup to Apple, Apple can effectively go back to the publisher and get a further discount. It's not collusion unless Apple and Amazon lock themselves in a room and work all this out.
I'd love to know the exact sequence of events that leads to these crackdowns. e.g. Film studio gives money to minister. Minister has a word in the ear of police commissioner, etc, or whatever pen pusher decided to put this sequence of events into action.
It's my understanding that most micro-tumours discovered early are really nothing, that would never amount to anything. Steve Jobs aside, I'd have equal fear of some unnecessary surgery as leaving the thing in and monitoring it.
True, but at least you know about the disconnect, and don't fool yourself too much about it. In real life when you are fooled, there is no reality check to bring you back to earth.
That's good. I'm curious since you were so specific about what you were looking for... what were you looking for? Super beautiful and smart, or something very specific?
Wow, a woman 19 years older. That's unusual. Even more so that it lasted.
"Now if only there were a way to meet and talk and talk and talk with a person face-to-face, in-real-life, instead of *having* to go to a movie and then make out in the car."
Ha ha. The reality is, in real life there will be an expectation of some kind of physical contact rather soonish (unless you are in Iran or something), and that can tend to muddle things. In your case, you got to know her through NOT dating, so you got to know her a bit prior to any such expectations.
I "dated" a woman online, and found out about her depression and suicidal thoughts after a couple of weeks, so I wouldn't assume that online is always a better way to hide stuff. In some cases the distance gives you an objectivity missing from real life. It all depends.
Online dating can be a bit more objective, in that you can look at thousands of profiles and only contact exactly the kind of people you are interested in. Of course, there is a big difference between a profile and reality, but it ought to be more objective and get you closer to what you want, quicker, than meeting whoever happens to catch your eye at a bar.
I don't know.... how is it morally more problematic to access a web site with javascript than accessing a web site with extensive back-end functionality? Why is the location of the CPU the moral dividing line?
While I can see the argument that something like Google docs or something where the entire app is basically javascript would be nice to have open source, I don't get that I want access to every random bit of code that does an ajax call (which is Stallman's criteria for code which should be open). I mean, if I'm on amazon.com, and I select something from a dropdown that refreshes a part of the screen by ajax, do I really care? Should it offend my sensibilities that the entire amazon.com backend server code is not mine to fiddle with and modify? I have sympathy for the open source ideal, but I'm really struggling to see how javascript is a moral issue.
I don't think they're under any illusion that they can cut off the news flow. I think they just want to tame the biggest outlets to their will, and they figure the 95% control of the masses that this gives them is enough. Not being too familiar with Singapore politics, I'm not sure exactly what they are aiming at.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the problem is that we've seen over time many web based jail breaks of iPhones. Just visit a URL, and it breaks your phone's security to the root level. So if you can combine man-in-the-middle with a jailbreak style hack, you can redirect everyone's safari to your web site and p0wn everyone's iPhone in the city. Not easy to pull off, but potentially devastating to large numbers of users if you can.
Not only that, but I would have thought that if software replaced something that already exists in mechanical form, it could hardly be innovative. Rather it would be obvious.
I am hereby setting up a crowd funded effort to bomb and destroy this radio dish. I don't want any aliens appearing on my front doorstep. We've all seen the movies, this never ends well.
Seriously though, it seems to me incredibly arrogant and self centred for a private group of people to try and contact aliens, because the potential results of aliens turning up could be catastrophic, and that's a decision that all mankind should make together, not some private group.
The only reason I'm not concerned is that I think this has precisely a zero point zero chance of success.
Actually, I thought the route is on the southern border, so it doesn't actually cut it in half at all. The Panama canal cuts the country in half, and it doesn't seem to be a big problem.
" nobody will argue that it is more efficient to ship from LA to NY via ship instead of rail. "
I'm not in a position to do the math, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is more efficient in some circumstances. A ship can move 10,000 containers. I'm guessing that is the equivilent 100+ trains.
If you've got a container of stuff from China that needs distributing all over the US, then sure it makes sense to get it from LA. But if its purely for the east coast, then its not so clear.
Considering how much it cost to build a tunnel under the English channel, making a tunnel big enough for a 250,000 ton ship sounds prohibitively expensive.
I for one welcome our new insect overlords.
I would have thought the fastest browser was the most efficient, thereby making the fastest browser also the most efficient in power. That makes this study very hard to believe.
" Here is a surprise for you: when a reactor is defueled, the containment is often left open to the outside environment"
Well that's not a great idea since insects, birds etc can fly in and out and get contaminated. And since 1 microgram of plutonium if inhaled is fatal, that's a genuine health hazard.
You are living in 1996 if you think anytime soon you'll be able to improve a new Mac Pro into "something respectable" with some cheap video card.
Well, exactly. You throw computations resources to find out if the conjecture is interesting. If you try brute forcing an exception and fail, the you've found something interesting.
The agency model for Apple doesn't prevent Amazon from negotiating a different wholesale price to Apple. It's just that once they've done so, if they choose to sell it at a lower markup to Apple, Apple can effectively go back to the publisher and get a further discount. It's not collusion unless Apple and Amazon lock themselves in a room and work all this out.
I'd love to know the exact sequence of events that leads to these crackdowns. e.g. Film studio gives money to minister. Minister has a word in the ear of police commissioner, etc, or whatever pen pusher decided to put this sequence of events into action.
Yes, the saving grace of Fukishima was that the core didn't burn and get spread over Japan. Luck rather than good management though.
It's my understanding that most micro-tumours discovered early are really nothing, that would never amount to anything. Steve Jobs aside, I'd have equal fear of some unnecessary surgery as leaving the thing in and monitoring it.
"there's still a kind of emotional disconnect"...
True, but at least you know about the disconnect, and don't fool yourself too much about it. In real life when you are fooled, there is no reality check to bring you back to earth.
That's good. I'm curious since you were so specific about what you were looking for... what were you looking for? Super beautiful and smart, or something very specific?
Ha ha. I assume the survey assumes first that you married the drunk chick, which I guess doesn't usually happen. (Unless you are in Vegas).
Wow, a woman 19 years older. That's unusual. Even more so that it lasted.
"Now if only there were a way to meet and talk and talk and talk with a person face-to-face, in-real-life, instead of *having* to go to a movie and then make out in the car."
Ha ha. The reality is, in real life there will be an expectation of some kind of physical contact rather soonish (unless you are in Iran or something), and that can tend to muddle things. In your case, you got to know her through NOT dating, so you got to know her a bit prior to any such expectations.
I "dated" a woman online, and found out about her depression and suicidal thoughts after a couple of weeks, so I wouldn't assume that online is always a better way to hide stuff. In some cases the distance gives you an objectivity missing from real life. It all depends.
Online dating can be a bit more objective, in that you can look at thousands of profiles and only contact exactly the kind of people you are interested in. Of course, there is a big difference between a profile and reality, but it ought to be more objective and get you closer to what you want, quicker, than meeting whoever happens to catch your eye at a bar.
What I really want to know is what happened to the man's beer. Did Telstra buy him a new fridge or what?
I don't know.... how is it morally more problematic to access a web site with javascript than accessing a web site with extensive back-end functionality? Why is the location of the CPU the moral dividing line?
While I can see the argument that something like Google docs or something where the entire app is basically javascript would be nice to have open source, I don't get that I want access to every random bit of code that does an ajax call (which is Stallman's criteria for code which should be open). I mean, if I'm on amazon.com, and I select something from a dropdown that refreshes a part of the screen by ajax, do I really care? Should it offend my sensibilities that the entire amazon.com backend server code is not mine to fiddle with and modify? I have sympathy for the open source ideal, but I'm really struggling to see how javascript is a moral issue.
I don't think they're under any illusion that they can cut off the news flow. I think they just want to tame the biggest outlets to their will, and they figure the 95% control of the masses that this gives them is enough. Not being too familiar with Singapore politics, I'm not sure exactly what they are aiming at.