Does a regular roof burning not release toxic fumes while burning?
In this context "toxic" means something beyond potentially fatal. Smoke from plain old organic wood can kill you at some point, but it is not "toxic" in the way that some plastics are for example. I once worked in a department store warehouse. There were fire extinguishers all over the place but management told us that if the toy department was on fire to hit the alarm, make sure others got out, but do *not* go near the fire. That toxic fumes are most likely being generated: hydrochloric acid, dioxin, etc. This is why people wiring their own homes must make sure they are buying cabling that is rated for indoor use.
If the solar material has similar issues, and if it is used as shingles then it may have sufficient quantities to present a hazard to neighbors.
Since *I* don't have such access, there is an obvious restriction. Think about the scientific method...
Have you? It is common to restrict access until research is complete and results published. Academics have worked that way for ages, and for good reason.
My friend was a part time grad student employee on the project. The research was not complete or published when he moved on. Also, I had a typo - or brain fart if you prefer, it should have been "distributed shared memory" not "distributed shared computing". My bad.
Will they last, are they durable, is it flexible or rigid? Lot of questions left to answer on the solar front.
However, if I can shingle my roof with these things, all the better!
If you are going to shingle your roof then "are they fire resistant" and "do they release toxic fumes when burning" should be two more explicit first questions.
Why don't they just use solar power on top of the vehicle. Aren't they working on flexible Solar Cells?
The Air Force likes to operate at night and when it is cloudy too. It's been what 80'ish years since they decided that they should not be limited to sunny days.:-)
Also, can you get solar cells in matte camouflage?
I don't think that means what you think it means. I'm sure that there are lots of "innovative" patents in MS's portfolio, though I'm certain that many were purchased elsewhere rather than developed in house.
It does not seem that you are qualified to comment on the shortcomings of others, you need to work on yourself first. Those interested in what MS actually does in house might want to look at Micorsoft Research's project page: http://research.microsoft.com/research/projects/default.aspx.
Also, out of house research is not necessarily patented. A friend did research on distributed shared computing in grad school. The project was supported by Microsoft, they had access to Windows source code, they were not restricted from publishing their research.
Did you just miss the joke or are you with the FBI
Neither. The GP was a convenient vehicle to point out that this story has a pretty serious component. I apologize for interrupting the obvious, and therefore weak, Austin Powers jokes with a little bit a serious reality.:-P
If an aircraft accidently happened to wander in to the path when I was showing somebody where M31 or Comet 17P/Holmes was, is it a crime? I don't think so.
It may not be a crime, but you may still be liable for the incident. It is probably your responsibility to not illuminate aircraft. Much like it is a shooter's responsibility to make sure downrange is clear. You may set up a target in the desert and intend to shoot only at the target, but if you hit someone/something a mile downrange you are responsible.
It is a virtual certainty that if a crash results you will be sued into oblivion.
Need a bit more background here. Was the laser attached to a missile launcher?
No, there is plenty of information in the summary, let alone the article. When disorienting a pilot flying at 500 feet, and impairing his vision, a missile launcher is not needed to put human life in jeopardy. That includes the pilot and crew and the families below that may have a fuel ladened aircraft crash into their homes.
There is no need to go all tinfoil hat regarding implants, just go with real news that suggests there may be a cancer issue.
"Earlier this month, it was reported that some lab animals implanted with chips developed cancer and sarcoma. Other possible adverse effects include tissue reactions, migration of the implanted chip, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) incompatibility, electrical hazards, infection and even compromised information security." http://www.news-medical.net/?id=30061
... scientists try to prove other scientists wrong. The hard-headedness that some colleagues demonstrate when faced with opposing theories that have substantial backing data is a little disheartening at times... Religious or not, as a human it's difficult to escape the mechanism of cognitive dissonance in a perfect manner.
One good example of some scientists being just as closed minded as religious fundamentalists was that some rejected the big bang theory of the universe because it was proposed by a catholic priest, Georges Lemaître http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre. Note: I'm not referring to Einstein, he was skeptical at first and suspected a religious influence, but he did not dismiss Lemaître.
That is, "alternate" universes are ipso facto impossible, because there is no other set of physical laws that are consistent with each other.
I don't think the problem is with internal consistency of a set of laws, but compatibility with us. I believe Hawking argues that other sets of laws are possible, just incompatible with life. That our existence requires the current set. Regarding fundamental numbers (electron charge, etc): "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
In addition, some astronomers even write science fiction.:)
(That begs a question: Do theoretical physicists write science fiction? Outside of work, I mean?;-) )
They sometimes appear in Star Trek TV episodes, Stephen Hawking.
If you want to be taken seriously as an astronomer then might I suggest not comparing your research to fictional works
Your suggestion is laughable, astronomers use fiction all the time. Consider the names of the planets, some constellations, etc. I apologize if you believe in the greek/roman gods, you have to consider that most of us consider them fictional.;-)
"No one is saying that a forum admin should evaluate the validity of the issue."
That's precisely what you're saying, otherwise Apple should just pay it's security team to be the forum administrators so that nothing is missed...
I said no such thing. I was quite clear that the forum admin should *not* be reporting directly to developers, that there should be a qualified person to accept the report and decide if it has merit, and that person forwards to developers.
... You can't tell someone to forward some things and not others without asking them to evaluate the messages to determine which need forwarding. In order to evaluate which need forwarding, you need technical knowledge about what is being discussed.
No. If you do not possess the technical knowledge, or the authority to make the call, you forward it to someone who does, and again that should probably not be the developers.
"Also you are creating a silly red herring. This particular security problem is independent of hardware or software. The problem and fix lie in a *web* interface"
So because it's a web interface it isn't software? It doesn't require any technical knowledge to evaluate? That doesn't even make any sense. There's no difference between a web interface and a standalone application interface in terms of telling a security issue from someone just bitching or being an idiot.
You wrote: "that user forum administrators are in no way able to evaluate what is a stupid user error vs what is an actual security issue across the hundreds of different hardware and software combinations Apple offers." The complexity you speak of is irrelevant, this is not application or OS code. The testing matrix is not all supported hardware models, it is the currently supported versions of Safari.
Triage is one of the most important and time-consuming parts of dealing with bugs and security issues, and if you think Apple's finest programmers are running the first-line triage on the bug database, you're crazy...
This is rediculous, your misrepresentation can not be accidental. I have written on multiple occasions that the forum admin should *not* be reporting directly to the developers. That the admin should be reporting to someone else, that this designated person filter out the noise.
... They have a whole staff with actual technical training and resources available whose sole job it is to do that triage, and basically what you're suggesting is that every single Apple employee should be trained in those skills and have those resources, or that the triage team should take over every form of communication "just in case".
Because unless every Apple employee from the janitor to the shipping clerk knows as much as the triage team, they DON'T have the skills necessary to know what does and doesn't need to be reported to the triage team (hi, I'm a catch-22, nice to meet you!).
Actually, what I am suggesting is the following. Apparently you missed it, from my older post: Either a forum admin failed to report a security issue or they forum admin reported it and no one felt the need to update a *web interface* in a timely manner. Either scenario indicates that something is lacking at Apple.
You realize that the post was probably deleted by someone in poorly-trained low level support monkeys, right?
Apple has a bug reporting system and an email for security issues. Use them, not the forums, if you want to make sure the post is actually evaluated by someone with understanding of... well, anything technical.
You are merely describing what may be the specific shortcoming of Apple's organization. By ignoring the report because it was made via an inappropriate channel the monkey is in reality making a determination of the validity of the report. The monkey should forward the report to a non-monkey.
"You claim that what forum admins do is unrelated to security. That is mistaken. Either a forum admin failed to report a security issue or they forum admin reported it and no one felt the need to update a *web interface* in a timely manner. Either scenario indicates that something is lacking at Apple."
Or it indicates that user forums are not the place to report security flaws,...
If that were the case you are merely demonstrating where one fault may lie. No communication channel should disregard a security flaw report.
... and that user forum administrators are in no way able to evaluate what is a stupid user error vs what is an actual security issue across the hundreds of different hardware and software combinations Apple offers.
Again, you merely demonstrate where one fault may lie. No one is saying that a forum admin should evaluate the validity of the issue. What a forum admin should do is forward the issue to someone who is competent to make that evaluation. By deleting a post and not forwarding the info the admin would in fact be making such a determination and that would be wrong if it is the case.
Also you are creating a silly red herring. This particular security problem is independent of hardware or software. The problem and fix lie in a *web* interface.
If you think every forum post should simply be echoed to the bug tracker, that's your prerogative, but it seems to be a great way to waste a lot of the qualified bug-squashers' time.
Another silly red herring. There are qualified people between the forum admin and the developers. Isolating developers from the noise is a common thing in many organizations. If your silly scenario were true, if a forum guy could directly contact a developer then that would be yet another example of where a shortcoming may lie.
Misrepresenting my position will not revive your failed logic. My position is that the communication channel is irrelevant. Any security issue reported in any manner should be evaluated by a qualified individual. If the report is not made to such an individual it should be forwarded to one. Once verified if should be addressed in a timely fashion. While we do not know whether the issue was properly forwarded, we certainly know it was not addressed in a timely fashion. Again, we are dealing with a *web* interface, not something that requires a software update.
If Apple were unwilling to immediately update the web page and server side glue they should have at least issued an alert informing customers to clear their browsing history when using a public terminal to access their iDisk. Their failure to do either indicates that there is a shortcoming somewhere, period.
How? What is the causal connection? Unless you have specific information about Apple's internal organization, and the relationship between the people who admin their forums and the people who work on OS security, the only connection is the one in your mind.
You claim that what forum admins do is unrelated to security. That is mistaken. Either a forum admin failed to report a security issue or they forum admin reported it and no one felt the need to update a *web interface* in a timely manner. Either scenario indicates that something is lacking at Apple.
They may be working on a fix already. They may not. They may roll it out in a week.
That may be timely for a software update delivered to end users but it certainly is not for a web page and server side glue.
Huh? You seem to have conflated their corporate policy, which is sometimes very stupid, with their security policy, which is generally good. The two have nothing to do with each other. Apple's overzealous moderation of their own forums is well known, and unfortunate. But it has nothing to do with how well they manage their OS security and how well they respond to exploits.
You are very mistaken, this incident does prove that Apple's security policies and responses are indeed lacking. Don't get fixated on the deletion of a post, consider that they did not respond by adding a logout option to a *web* interface.
Oh, okay, so we're not going to run out of oil - it's just that you and I won't be able to afford any. That's a relief.
Not being able to afford it is temporary. When personal and bulk transportation moves to something else oil will only be needed for plastics, lubricants, and fuel for more exotic uses. When we get to that point there will be a glut.
It's not that simple. Oil prices in the U.S. today have less to do with the Middle East or OPEC or any of the other usual suspects, and more to do with Wall Street.
Regardless of how speculation and futures contracts affect the price, demand out pacing supply will cause the price to increase, period. Financial markets are insignificant compared to industrialization and the rise of a middle class in China and India.
Also, why prices rise is somewhat irrelevant to spurring demand for alternatives. And I think today people are less likely to lose interest in alternatives if the price of oil drops as in the oil crisis and recovery of the 1970s. Peak production is easy to envision today, unlike then, China and India again, even more unstable sources of oil, etc.
Oh yeah, if you turn, your heart will forcibly exit your body via your anus before exploding. Have fun.
Nonsense. The turns will take place over a greater distance, the g forces will probably be the same. Consider that an F-16's turning radius may be measured in yards at its combat speed, while an SR-71's turning radius is measured in states at its combat speed.:-)
My recollection is fuzzy, but I believe F-4s hit 1.6 during the Vietnam war twice and ran out of fuel over enemy territory. For the flights that hit 1.4, some ran out of fuel over friendly territory. Max speed is not very important, too many planes are virtually out of fuel when they get there. That is why the F-22 is so revolutionary, having such relatively high cruising speeds. It could conceivably fight at 1+ rather than 0.6 to 0.9.
Slashdot Mirror
sooo. I can has my tin foil hat and be environmentally friendly at the same time?
;-)
I think you need a tinfoil hat and a tinfoil air filter.
Does a regular roof burning not release toxic fumes while burning?
In this context "toxic" means something beyond potentially fatal. Smoke from plain old organic wood can kill you at some point, but it is not "toxic" in the way that some plastics are for example. I once worked in a department store warehouse. There were fire extinguishers all over the place but management told us that if the toy department was on fire to hit the alarm, make sure others got out, but do *not* go near the fire. That toxic fumes are most likely being generated: hydrochloric acid, dioxin, etc. This is why people wiring their own homes must make sure they are buying cabling that is rated for indoor use.
If the solar material has similar issues, and if it is used as shingles then it may have sufficient quantities to present a hazard to neighbors.
Since *I* don't have such access, there is an obvious restriction. Think about the scientific method...
Have you? It is common to restrict access until research is complete and results published. Academics have worked that way for ages, and for good reason.
My friend was a part time grad student employee on the project. The research was not complete or published when he moved on. Also, I had a typo - or brain fart if you prefer, it should have been "distributed shared memory" not "distributed shared computing". My bad.
Will they last, are they durable, is it flexible or rigid? Lot of questions left to answer on the solar front. However, if I can shingle my roof with these things, all the better!
If you are going to shingle your roof then "are they fire resistant" and "do they release toxic fumes when burning" should be two more explicit first questions.
Can we try to keep slashdot *somewhat* based in reality here?
;-)
Why? Hype and irrationality have made slashdot the success it is today. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Why don't they just use solar power on top of the vehicle. Aren't they working on flexible Solar Cells?
:-)
The Air Force likes to operate at night and when it is cloudy too. It's been what 80'ish years since they decided that they should not be limited to sunny days.
Also, can you get solar cells in matte camouflage?
I don't think that means what you think it means. I'm sure that there are lots of "innovative" patents in MS's portfolio, though I'm certain that many were purchased elsewhere rather than developed in house.
It does not seem that you are qualified to comment on the shortcomings of others, you need to work on yourself first. Those interested in what MS actually does in house might want to look at Micorsoft Research's project page: http://research.microsoft.com/research/projects/default.aspx.
Also, out of house research is not necessarily patented. A friend did research on distributed shared computing in grad school. The project was supported by Microsoft, they had access to Windows source code, they were not restricted from publishing their research.
Did you just miss the joke or are you with the FBI
:-P
Neither. The GP was a convenient vehicle to point out that this story has a pretty serious component. I apologize for interrupting the obvious, and therefore weak, Austin Powers jokes with a little bit a serious reality.
If an aircraft accidently happened to wander in to the path when I was showing somebody where M31 or Comet 17P/Holmes was, is it a crime? I don't think so.
It may not be a crime, but you may still be liable for the incident. It is probably your responsibility to not illuminate aircraft. Much like it is a shooter's responsibility to make sure downrange is clear. You may set up a target in the desert and intend to shoot only at the target, but if you hit someone/something a mile downrange you are responsible.
It is a virtual certainty that if a crash results you will be sued into oblivion.
Need a bit more background here. Was the laser attached to a missile launcher?
No, there is plenty of information in the summary, let alone the article. When disorienting a pilot flying at 500 feet, and impairing his vision, a missile launcher is not needed to put human life in jeopardy. That includes the pilot and crew and the families below that may have a fuel ladened aircraft crash into their homes.
There is no need to go all tinfoil hat regarding implants, just go with real news that suggests there may be a cancer issue.
"Earlier this month, it was reported that some lab animals implanted with chips developed cancer and sarcoma. Other possible adverse effects include tissue reactions, migration of the implanted chip, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) incompatibility, electrical hazards, infection and even compromised information security."
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=30061
... scientists try to prove other scientists wrong. The hard-headedness that some colleagues demonstrate when faced with opposing theories that have substantial backing data is a little disheartening at times... Religious or not, as a human it's difficult to escape the mechanism of cognitive dissonance in a perfect manner.
One good example of some scientists being just as closed minded as religious fundamentalists was that some rejected the big bang theory of the universe because it was proposed by a catholic priest, Georges Lemaître http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre. Note: I'm not referring to Einstein, he was skeptical at first and suspected a religious influence, but he did not dismiss Lemaître.
That is, "alternate" universes are ipso facto impossible, because there is no other set of physical laws that are consistent with each other.
I don't think the problem is with internal consistency of a set of laws, but compatibility with us. I believe Hawking argues that other sets of laws are possible, just incompatible with life. That our existence requires the current set. Regarding fundamental numbers (electron charge, etc): "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
In addition, some astronomers even write science fiction. :)
(That begs a question: Do theoretical physicists write science fiction? Outside of work, I mean? ;-) )
They sometimes appear in Star Trek TV episodes, Stephen Hawking.
If you want to be taken seriously as an astronomer then might I suggest not comparing your research to fictional works
;-)
Your suggestion is laughable, astronomers use fiction all the time. Consider the names of the planets, some constellations, etc. I apologize if you believe in the greek/roman gods, you have to consider that most of us consider them fictional.
"No one is saying that a forum admin should evaluate the validity of the issue."
... You can't tell someone to forward some things and not others without asking them to evaluate the messages to determine which need forwarding. In order to evaluate which need forwarding, you need technical knowledge about what is being discussed.
... They have a whole staff with actual technical training and resources available whose sole job it is to do that triage, and basically what you're suggesting is that every single Apple employee should be trained in those skills and have those resources, or that the triage team should take over every form of communication "just in case".
Because unless every Apple employee from the janitor to the shipping clerk knows as much as the triage team, they DON'T have the skills necessary to know what does and doesn't need to be reported to the triage team (hi, I'm a catch-22, nice to meet you!).
That's precisely what you're saying, otherwise Apple should just pay it's security team to be the forum administrators so that nothing is missed...
I said no such thing. I was quite clear that the forum admin should *not* be reporting directly to developers, that there should be a qualified person to accept the report and decide if it has merit, and that person forwards to developers.
No. If you do not possess the technical knowledge, or the authority to make the call, you forward it to someone who does, and again that should probably not be the developers.
"Also you are creating a silly red herring. This particular security problem is independent of hardware or software. The problem and fix lie in a *web* interface"
So because it's a web interface it isn't software? It doesn't require any technical knowledge to evaluate? That doesn't even make any sense. There's no difference between a web interface and a standalone application interface in terms of telling a security issue from someone just bitching or being an idiot.
You wrote: "that user forum administrators are in no way able to evaluate what is a stupid user error vs what is an actual security issue across the hundreds of different hardware and software combinations Apple offers." The complexity you speak of is irrelevant, this is not application or OS code. The testing matrix is not all supported hardware models, it is the currently supported versions of Safari.
Triage is one of the most important and time-consuming parts of dealing with bugs and security issues, and if you think Apple's finest programmers are running the first-line triage on the bug database, you're crazy...
This is rediculous, your misrepresentation can not be accidental. I have written on multiple occasions that the forum admin should *not* be reporting directly to the developers. That the admin should be reporting to someone else, that this designated person filter out the noise.
Actually, what I am suggesting is the following. Apparently you missed it, from my older post: Either a forum admin failed to report a security issue or they forum admin reported it and no one felt the need to update a *web interface* in a timely manner. Either scenario indicates that something is lacking at Apple.
You realize that the post was probably deleted by someone in poorly-trained low level support monkeys, right? Apple has a bug reporting system and an email for security issues. Use them, not the forums, if you want to make sure the post is actually evaluated by someone with understanding of... well, anything technical.
You are merely describing what may be the specific shortcoming of Apple's organization. By ignoring the report because it was made via an inappropriate channel the monkey is in reality making a determination of the validity of the report. The monkey should forward the report to a non-monkey.
"You claim that what forum admins do is unrelated to security. That is mistaken. Either a forum admin failed to report a security issue or they forum admin reported it and no one felt the need to update a *web interface* in a timely manner. Either scenario indicates that something is lacking at Apple."
...
... and that user forum administrators are in no way able to evaluate what is a stupid user error vs what is an actual security issue across the hundreds of different hardware and software combinations Apple offers.
Or it indicates that user forums are not the place to report security flaws,
If that were the case you are merely demonstrating where one fault may lie. No communication channel should disregard a security flaw report.
Again, you merely demonstrate where one fault may lie. No one is saying that a forum admin should evaluate the validity of the issue. What a forum admin should do is forward the issue to someone who is competent to make that evaluation. By deleting a post and not forwarding the info the admin would in fact be making such a determination and that would be wrong if it is the case.
Also you are creating a silly red herring. This particular security problem is independent of hardware or software. The problem and fix lie in a *web* interface.
If you think every forum post should simply be echoed to the bug tracker, that's your prerogative, but it seems to be a great way to waste a lot of the qualified bug-squashers' time.
Another silly red herring. There are qualified people between the forum admin and the developers. Isolating developers from the noise is a common thing in many organizations. If your silly scenario were true, if a forum guy could directly contact a developer then that would be yet another example of where a shortcoming may lie.
Misrepresenting my position will not revive your failed logic. My position is that the communication channel is irrelevant. Any security issue reported in any manner should be evaluated by a qualified individual. If the report is not made to such an individual it should be forwarded to one. Once verified if should be addressed in a timely fashion. While we do not know whether the issue was properly forwarded, we certainly know it was not addressed in a timely fashion. Again, we are dealing with a *web* interface, not something that requires a software update.
If Apple were unwilling to immediately update the web page and server side glue they should have at least issued an alert informing customers to clear their browsing history when using a public terminal to access their iDisk. Their failure to do either indicates that there is a shortcoming somewhere, period.
How? What is the causal connection? Unless you have specific information about Apple's internal organization, and the relationship between the people who admin their forums and the people who work on OS security, the only connection is the one in your mind.
You claim that what forum admins do is unrelated to security. That is mistaken. Either a forum admin failed to report a security issue or they forum admin reported it and no one felt the need to update a *web interface* in a timely manner. Either scenario indicates that something is lacking at Apple.
They may be working on a fix already. They may not. They may roll it out in a week.
That may be timely for a software update delivered to end users but it certainly is not for a web page and server side glue.
Huh? You seem to have conflated their corporate policy, which is sometimes very stupid, with their security policy, which is generally good. The two have nothing to do with each other. Apple's overzealous moderation of their own forums is well known, and unfortunate. But it has nothing to do with how well they manage their OS security and how well they respond to exploits.
You are very mistaken, this incident does prove that Apple's security policies and responses are indeed lacking. Don't get fixated on the deletion of a post, consider that they did not respond by adding a logout option to a *web* interface.
Oh, okay, so we're not going to run out of oil - it's just that you and I won't be able to afford any. That's a relief.
Not being able to afford it is temporary. When personal and bulk transportation moves to something else oil will only be needed for plastics, lubricants, and fuel for more exotic uses. When we get to that point there will be a glut.
It's not that simple. Oil prices in the U.S. today have less to do with the Middle East or OPEC or any of the other usual suspects, and more to do with Wall Street.
Regardless of how speculation and futures contracts affect the price, demand out pacing supply will cause the price to increase, period. Financial markets are insignificant compared to industrialization and the rise of a middle class in China and India.
Also, why prices rise is somewhat irrelevant to spurring demand for alternatives. And I think today people are less likely to lose interest in alternatives if the price of oil drops as in the oil crisis and recovery of the 1970s. Peak production is easy to envision today, unlike then, China and India again, even more unstable sources of oil, etc.
Oh yeah, if you turn, your heart will forcibly exit your body via your anus before exploding. Have fun.
:-)
Nonsense. The turns will take place over a greater distance, the g forces will probably be the same. Consider that an F-16's turning radius may be measured in yards at its combat speed, while an SR-71's turning radius is measured in states at its combat speed.
But yeah, Mach 1.6 is low. Maybe in the '50s?
My recollection is fuzzy, but I believe F-4s hit 1.6 during the Vietnam war twice and ran out of fuel over enemy territory. For the flights that hit 1.4, some ran out of fuel over friendly territory. Max speed is not very important, too many planes are virtually out of fuel when they get there. That is why the F-22 is so revolutionary, having such relatively high cruising speeds. It could conceivably fight at 1+ rather than 0.6 to 0.9.