If it's discovered that they've lied in court I think the company should be dissolved for a period of time not less than what an individual caught lying in court would be sentenced to. It's time that corporations enjoyed some of the responsibilities of being considered 'individuals' as well as the rights and priveleges.
Any individual caught lying in court might spend time incarcerated, but even during that time, he/she could have a trustee continue running his business. Putting the corporation in jail (and that's hard to do.:) ) would not prevent the people who are currently running its business from running its business.
Just my $.02
If you're that paranoid, you could keep your SSH, but have it listen on a non-standard port. Okay, it wouldn't solve any problems, really, except that the 31337 haX0rS' worms wouldn't find you.
Simple way to verify the experiment: Fifty percent of the agents which find themselves in 9th place are in a world with 10 agents, and fifty percent are in a world with 100 agents.
HOWEVER: 91% of all agents in the experiment find themselves in a world with 100 agents.
Just because an agent finds himself in the 9th position doesn't increase his chances in the least that he is in a 10-agent world.
It's estimated that 10% of all the human population ever living on Earth is alive now. Does that mean I have a 10% chance of living forever?
While many argue that Microsoft is a (pardon my french) big bum-bum head, they do have a pretty snazzy windows system (with some exceptions, of course.) You've got to admit -- all security flaws and other massive problems aside, they've been doing windows There's a book that I have found IMMENSELY informative, helpful, and, in its own way, entertaining. It's called Inside Windows 2000, by David Solomon and Mark Russinovich. Mark runs sysinternals.com, a very cool site full of windows hacks and utilities that he's written. I run a Win2k network, and the sysinternals utilities have saved my life and a whole lot of work, many times. Check it out!
If they decide to give up the few cents' cut of CD sales, and just have copy-protected CD's, what's to stop them charging more for those CD's so that they regain the money they just lost? Nothing. You can bet they're not just going to eat the revenue loss and not pass the cost on to the consumers. (Us!)
Not all used up -- it really is more efficient.
on
Magnetic Space Launches
·
· Score: 2, Informative
all the energy used to create sufficient electricity to do so would make this method of launch just as costly as the previous
Well, not exactly. In a traditional launch, the initial thrust has to get the mass of the payload PLUS a whole LOT of fuel moving. But as the fuel burns, each pound (or ounce, or whatever unit you want) of fuel adds more actual acceleration than the last pound did, because it has the same thrust but less mass that it has to push. The efficiency of the energy spent can be calculated by taking the integral of how much thrust is produced as the mass it needs to push decreases. As the launch progresses, each ounce of fuel has more effect (in the goal of accelerating the rest of the fuel and the payload) than the previous one did.
In the mag-lev case, the mass of the object being launched starts out MUCH MUCH smaller than in a traditional case, and the entire object stays at that smaller mass. By the time the object has reached its target velocity, (I'm simplifying the math a little here) the total energy spent has been mass(final) times velocity squared, instead of the of integral of the mass(inital to final) times velocity squared (mass and time being our changing variables). It'd make more sense if I could figure a way to show mathematic equations in html;), but if you've had some calculus it should make sense. Much less energy is actually used to get a given amount of mass to a given velocity.
Obviously, it still requires energy, but not nearly the amount of energy for a traditional launch. Likely (at this point in the development of the technology) the mag-lev launch would still require some fuel burn at the end, to get the vehicle from the post-mag-lev velocity to an orbital velocity, and to get it up to the right height, but a lot of energy would already have been saved.
In a nutshell, for emphasis: the vast majority of the energy required to launch something into orbit is used at the beginning of the launch, and mag-lev technology would be able to reduce the initial launch sequence's energy dramatically.
I know this will sound like I'm jumping to the wrong side of the fence, but there's one thing to say that is (marginally) in Microsoft's behalf -- while they originally "didn't consider it a problem," they *have* since reversed their position.
So maybe they've been screwing over the whole world for the past fifteen years -- at least they have the guts to admit it and "start working" on a patch.;)
Are you kidding? If we had computers that fast, good ol' Bill would be relieved he didn't have to make his code as streamlined as it is now!! (Namely, not very.) Windows 2003 would probably include a full backup and bit-by-bit disk scan right in the boot process.
Slashdot Mirror
Any individual caught lying in court might spend time incarcerated, but even during that time, he/she could have a trustee continue running his business. Putting the corporation in jail (and that's hard to do. :) ) would not prevent the people who are currently running its business from running its business.
Just my $.02
I think Freud could have a lot of fun analyzing this egg.
Do you think it is attracted to the chicken that laid it?
The only game I spent more time on than Zork was Anacreon.
.sig intentionally left blank.
This
If you're that paranoid, you could keep your SSH, but have it listen on a non-standard port.
Okay, it wouldn't solve any problems, really, except that the 31337 haX0rS' worms wouldn't find you.
Just how fast are we talking about when we say "high connection speeds"
Heck with patents -- Open-source it all!!
HOWEVER: 91% of all agents in the experiment find themselves in a world with 100 agents.
Just because an agent finds himself in the 9th position doesn't increase his chances in the least that he is in a 10-agent world.
It's estimated that 10% of all the human population ever living on Earth is alive now. Does that mean I have a 10% chance of living forever?
While many argue that Microsoft is a (pardon my french) big bum-bum head, they do have a pretty snazzy windows system (with some exceptions, of course.) You've got to admit -- all security flaws and other massive problems aside, they've been doing windows There's a book that I have found IMMENSELY informative, helpful, and, in its own way, entertaining. It's called Inside Windows 2000, by David Solomon and Mark Russinovich. Mark runs sysinternals.com, a very cool site full of windows hacks and utilities that he's written. I run a Win2k network, and the sysinternals utilities have saved my life and a whole lot of work, many times. Check it out!
If they decide to give up the few cents' cut of CD sales, and just have copy-protected CD's, what's to stop them charging more for those CD's so that they regain the money they just lost? Nothing. You can bet they're not just going to eat the revenue loss and not pass the cost on to the consumers. (Us!)
Well, not exactly. In a traditional launch, the initial thrust has to get the mass of the payload PLUS a whole LOT of fuel moving. But as the fuel burns, each pound (or ounce, or whatever unit you want) of fuel adds more actual acceleration than the last pound did, because it has the same thrust but less mass that it has to push. The efficiency of the energy spent can be calculated by taking the integral of how much thrust is produced as the mass it needs to push decreases. As the launch progresses, each ounce of fuel has more effect (in the goal of accelerating the rest of the fuel and the payload) than the previous one did.
In the mag-lev case, the mass of the object being launched starts out MUCH MUCH smaller than in a traditional case, and the entire object stays at that smaller mass. By the time the object has reached its target velocity, (I'm simplifying the math a little here) the total energy spent has been mass(final) times velocity squared, instead of the of integral of the mass(inital to final) times velocity squared (mass and time being our changing variables). It'd make more sense if I could figure a way to show mathematic equations in html ;), but if you've had some calculus it should make sense. Much less energy is actually used to get a given amount of mass to a given velocity.
Obviously, it still requires energy, but not nearly the amount of energy for a traditional launch. Likely (at this point in the development of the technology) the mag-lev launch would still require some fuel burn at the end, to get the vehicle from the post-mag-lev velocity to an orbital velocity, and to get it up to the right height, but a lot of energy would already have been saved.
In a nutshell, for emphasis: the vast majority of the energy required to launch something into orbit is used at the beginning of the launch, and mag-lev technology would be able to reduce the initial launch sequence's energy dramatically.
I know this will sound like I'm jumping to the wrong side of the fence, but there's one thing to say that is (marginally) in Microsoft's behalf -- while they originally "didn't consider it a problem," they *have* since reversed their position. So maybe they've been screwing over the whole world for the past fifteen years -- at least they have the guts to admit it and "start working" on a patch. ;)
Are you kidding? If we had computers that fast, good ol' Bill would be relieved he didn't have to make his code as streamlined as it is now!! (Namely, not very.) Windows 2003 would probably include a full backup and bit-by-bit disk scan right in the boot process.