One renown scientist told me that simulations are just models that you tweak to get results you want.
In a very narrow interpretation, this is correct. If you're playing the good scientist for the day, you tweak a model to get results which agree with known values, which are the results you want. Then, using the refined model, you simulate the situation you want to predict. When those numbers come out, you tweak your model to find out how sensitive the simulated results are to each of the simulation parameters to estimate error bounds. Lather, rinse, repeat, publish.
Many scientists (I am among them) toss around glib quotes that serve more as cautionary tales, but the non-science public gets to hear these out of context and thinks of them as evidence of fraud. As an example which applies to simulation, in physics: "Theorists don't believe each other, experimentalists don't believe their results and computational physicists don't believe themselves." Which is really to say that computational physicists are always on the hunt for artifacts (read: wrong answers) due to the simulation process; these are distinct from incorrect theories.
Before you conclude the innocence or guilt of the CRU folk from something you heard from some other person who wasn't even commenting on their situation, let the investigation look at all the data.
If there's any sexism, I've seen no proof it's internal to FOSS.
Are you raising the subject of sexism just based on the fact that only 1.5% of FOSS developers are women?
Yes, as opposed to 28% in proprietary software (http://www.openwebvancouver.ca/sites/default/files/byron-women_in_open_source.pdf, p. 14-17). If it were as simple as "this trait [of willingness to do significant unpaid work] is far less common in women than men," then you'd expect that no volunteer organization to have a significant population of female members. But peace corps volunteers are 60% female (http://www.peacecorps.gov/wws/enewsletter/archives/may09.html).
I'm inclined to agree with you that women are not attracted to programming in general because of social factors external to the programming world, but there are definitely internal factors as well. (As evidence, I cite the fact of active research in the field of physics education toward understanding why women initially do well in introductory courses, but progressively drop off in higher-level courses. Mind you, this research is done by real physicists.) Most technical fields suffer from this. Non-commercial programming doesn't require a different level of competence than commercial programming; free software approaches problems of similar difficulty and scale as non-free software, therefore a difference between men and women (if one exists!) in interest or competence doesn't account for the large difference in female participation. I'd bet money that there are numerous causes which the FOSS community will need lots of time to sort out and repair, but they're not all invisible.
Bruce Byfield touches on part of the problem (http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3838186_2/Sexism-Open-Source-Softwares-Dirty-Little-Secret.htm): When an incident occurs where a joke unintentionally offends, the person who made the joke inevitably says something to the effect of "it was just a joke, chill out." This only serves to alienate women (and other offended groups), rather than re-gain their confidence. This applies in the cases of all mistakes, particularly on the part of leadership, which affect others. A failure to acknowledge the error will only persuade people to leave the community.
Defending the mistake is the wrong thing to do, and will only make the offended people more angry because most human beings do not like having their feelings and opinions ignored (I offer a lifetime warranty on this technique for alienating people). The excuse, "it was just a joke," essentially invalidates the opinion of the offended people, whether or not the defendant intends (you might notice that people who make excuses excessively have few to no friends). The correct thing to do is actually apologize. To understand this process the apologetic party must make an attempt to stand in the other party's shoes, then coherently address their concerns. To effectively show concern for the complainant, the person apologizing must be brave about it and never mount a defense. The process follows:
1) Do NOT defend actions. Do NOT put the burden on the other party; specifically, use active first person verbs ("I made...", "I will...", etc.), and do not use the passive voice ("I was misunderstood...") as it contains an implicit "by [someone]," effectively deflecting responsibility.
2) Acknowledge the other person's feelings. (Examples: Formal; "I understand that you are uncomfortable with something I [said/did]." Less Formal; "I get that you're pissed at me.")
3) Acknowledge responsibility. (Formal; "This arose from [an action I took/a statement I made]." Less Formal; "I messed up.")
4) Cite specific failure. (Formal; "I did not foresee the [negative outcome(s)/implicit message(s)] which I [caused/expounded]." Less formal; "I didn't know [it] was meaningful to you.")
5a) If a lesson was learned state the lesson. (Formal; "In the future I will be more aware of the impact my [w
I often use OpenOffice Math when writing, and it doesn't render correctly in word when I save as.doc, so I always save as.odt and send PDFs to the unenlightened when I need to share with them.
I am tired of Mr. Thompson's flawed argument that anyone effectively "trained" on any violent video game anywhere. Firing a rifle/pistol/whatever in a video game is nothing like firing its real-life equivalent. For starters, breathing comes into play, as well as the weight of the weapon and the motion of the trigger finger. A video game controller allows you to separate all these things from the motion of the crosshairs. Your thumb and pinky move separately rather nicely, the controller itself is fairly light weight, and when you breathe, the joystick doesn't move. Nobody can train for firing a real, live gun by shooting at elites and grunts with illuminated pixels!
The low brightness of supernovae in highly redshifted galaxies is easy to explain, based upon Halton Arp's linking of high redshift and faintness of a galaxy to the youthfulness of a nearby galaxy. In an electric universe, a galactic circuit powers supernovae. In a new galaxy the driving potential is low, causing both the observed faintness and high intrinsic redshift. A supernova in such a galaxy will therefore have reduced power and brightness.
(Emphasis my own.)
What the hell does a low "driving potential" have to do with redshift? Last I checked, applying an E field does not alter the color of propagating EM radiation. What the hell are the editors thinking? I understand the need for a diversity of ideas, but at least try to present ones which are well-founded.
I find it interesting that nobody has argued over the enormous difference between a FPS game and firing a real weapon. The two skill sets don't even begin to translate. Essentially, all this hubub over videogame violence from uneducated individuals has NO real-life basis; one may argue infinitely that violent gaming may make some people numb to the perception of violence, but videogames do not even begin to build weapon handling skills.
Hang on now! We can't let people take the blame for their own actions! That's what lawyers call attractive nuisance. If a kid down the street steals gasoline from your car and severely burns himself, OF COURSE it's your fault! You parked the damn thing in your driveway!
Did everything from cosmology to genetics. He was even sentenced to death, but never executed, by the USSR for defection.
For example: he predicted the strength of the cosmic microwave background about 20 years before it was actually observed and explained alpha decay of radioactive isotopes through quantum tunneling.
Take Hurricane Katrina for example (Get them -1 mods ready!). There are currently 35,000 people missing and about 1600 dead accounted for. Let's assume that there are 5,000 dead, since that's a nice, round number and doesn't seem too far-fetched to me. That means that there are 5,000 fewer people who may later reproduce and spawn children that are more likely than others to habitate sites that are subject to cataclysmic weather. Evolution, folks! They were not selected.
I've been hearing about hydrogen for the past few years now. Everybody's been SO EXCITED, but it still continues to piss me off: Where the fuck do we get the hydrogen without using fossil fuels? And if we do use fossil fuels how the hell is this better than just burning the stuff in an engine of any kind?
Does anybody have a straight answer to this? Or should I just continue to bitch about how we should be researching alternatives (more efficient solar power, bio-fuels, etc.)?
It's not that measuring intelligence is taboo. It's simply that not a single one of us would tolerate being pushed out of a job because an entirely unrelated test spits out a number that is lower than the number written down by some accountant. As has been pointed out multiple times in the comments, we human beings have many differing abilities. Some of us are great at designing race cars, some of us are good at driving race cars, and some are good at repairing race cars. Obviously, there are many other traits possessed by humans, but experiences in one field can oftentimes be useful in any of the others.
If you take a limited sample of someone's abilities, and from that decide that they clearly can't perform the task at hand without giving them so much as the courtesy of an interview, then you not only harm that individual, but society as a whole by potentially shutting out new ideas and, hence, progress.
Theoretically, when spyware has been installed you clicked the almighty "yes" button. The reason the kids will get prosecuted for hacking only within the scope of a very broad, ignorant definition of hacking and any large corporation never will is because the kids probably can't put up a good legal fight unless their father happens to be a big shareholder in a large corporation. Unfortunately, the corporations can always afford to hire a very large number of very intelligent lawyers, so they are essentially legally untouchable.
I'm not trolling with this. I honestly only use pen and paper for appointments. I can't handle scheduling tasks on my computer and then synching to a palm, etc., etc. All the duplicity just slows me down. If I just carry a small planner with me and a pen, I've got everything written down all the time. Best of all, it works during power outages (never read in moon light?) and the batteries never die.
What if P2Pers were to use multiple hash functions to check files? SHA1 and MD5 sums use two very different methods to compute the hash for a file, so wouldn't using multiple hash functions mostly eliminate junk files?
How is this not a contribution to the entire world? Because cruise missiles are primarily intended to blow shit up? He could just as easily be designing pilotless orbital vehicles for the purpose of inexpensively launching satellites. While the X-Prize is nice, the fact of the matter is that the majority of space launches are unmanned and I think the X-Prize goal of getting two men into space and back safely is very nice indeed (afterall, we need manned launches, too), but slightly misguided. Maybe it should be for an unmanned craft of some kind that can put something into orbit and then two weeks later retrieve it.
Or what about the shipping department? Overseas shipping is amazingly expensive. If stuff could be sent by way of self-guided cruise missile, it'd be cheaper to ship and a hell of a lot faster.
I may be a little naive to think that stuff could be shipped overseas by way of missile, but unmanned orbital placement is far more profitable than X-Prize-type stuff and will be used far more often as a result.
I remember something like this being tried about 5 years ago. It had the amateur radio community in an uproar. Something to do with street lights re-radiating the high-speed internet data in the form of electromagnetic energy. Apparently they did little to fix it. Shame; I wanted to be the first one on my block to have the other cable.
"Am I a rare breed that can drive my car (2.0L I4, 170 HP, 6-speed manual) aggressively (I've had coworkers and friends say 'woah!' more than I'd like to admit *grin*) and still stomp the EPA sticker? Did I get lucky with a phenomenal car? Am I enough of a counter-example to thwart the belief that the EPA figures are 'too liberal'? Are fuel economy issues just FUD from [insert lobby group of choice]? Or is the answer simply 'it depends on how you drive, what you had for breakfast, and the color of your neighbors' cat?'"
No, you're not a rare breed. There are a few things that affect gas mileage and to different degrees. Here they are in the order of greatest degree of effect to least as I've observed.
1) Engine displacement
Larger engines draw more air/fuel mixture into the cylinders, then burn it.
2) Number of cylinders
In an internal combustion engine, the cylinders are constantly accelerating, therefore, more cylinders = more energy consumption just to keep the engine going.
3) Vehicle weight
Heavier vehicles take more energy to accelerate and increase the amount of friction in the wheel bearings.
4) Aerodynamics
Vehicles that are less aerodynamic lose more energy to wind resistance. Opening a window affects wind resistance, too.
5) Transmission
If your transmission is better matched to the speeds at which you commonly drive and the range of rotational speeds at which the engine runs most efficiently, you get better gas mileage.
6) Engine care
If you keep your oil pan full and change it often enough, your engine will continue to run nicely for a very long time. Wear produces small leaks over time, which affect gas mileage by sapping power and causing incomplete combustion in the cylinders.
7) Intake system
A friend of mine switched to a high-flow air filter and gained 3 miles per U.S. gallon. This is because the engine doesn't have to work as hard to take air in to the cylinders as a result of higher flow rates. A higher possible flow rate results in less vacuum at a given engine speed. Also, carburetion vs. fuel injection makes a difference. While a well-tuned carburetor is just as good as fuel injection, carburetors are subject to gasoline loss due to evaporation.
8) Exhaust system
The engine also has to push exhaust gases out. A less restricted exhaust system makes that require less work. I've heard of improvements ranging from 0 to 5 miles per gallon as a result of switching from a stock muffler to an irritating glass pack muffler.
9) Driving style
If you drive faster, it takes extra energy to get to gain those precious miles per hour. If you regularly run the engine to the red line, you consume gas much more quickly than someone who keeps it in that range of max efficieny most of the time. If you run your air conditioner, the compressor for the refrigerant consumes a significant amount of gas. (The heater doesn't, though, since it runs off the same system as the radiator, which works all the time that the engine is running.) If you have a gazillion watt stereo system, it consumes energy through your car's alternator. If you don't believe me on that one, look in a physics textbook. Oh yes, and my favorite, if you drive with one foot on the brake pedal at all times, you'll sap energy and wear your brake pads down.
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!!! They took the computer, which was a fun toy, and turned it into something more like the car. It's yours, but because of non-standard bolts and some black boxes, you can hardly do anything with your car without being certified by some dealership or whatever. This makes me so angry.
On a not-so-side note... anyone up for buying up non-DRMed computers when the mad rush to ditch them is on with the psychotic intention of building a really big Beowulf cluster? What can be done with the cluster doesn't require much imagination... >:D
I find it interesting to note that all these worms are recognized as malware only because they cause a massive amount of traffic from their replication. If someone were to write a worm that spread through email, but rather than mass-mailing at an enormous pace, sent one email every hour or so, I wonder how long it would take the computer security industry to recognize it for what it is and fix it.
"We know from the attempted jamming of our GPS (global positioning system, which relies on satellites) during OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) that our enemies are going to try to deny us from using space."
Yeah, right. A ground based attempt at jamming signals used for guidance of weapons and stuff just shows so much eagerness on part of the U.S.'s so called "enemies" to challenge them in space. Most of the countries that the U.S. considers hostile are entirely incapable of anything near getting a satellite into orbit. I suppose they (the U.S.'s enemies) are next going to make rocket propelled grenades that can orbit the earth and knock out a GPS satellite... about the same time the U.S. finally gets its smelly fingers out of business that ain't theirs.
Slashdot Mirror
In a very narrow interpretation, this is correct. If you're playing the good scientist for the day, you tweak a model to get results which agree with known values, which are the results you want. Then, using the refined model, you simulate the situation you want to predict. When those numbers come out, you tweak your model to find out how sensitive the simulated results are to each of the simulation parameters to estimate error bounds. Lather, rinse, repeat, publish.
Many scientists (I am among them) toss around glib quotes that serve more as cautionary tales, but the non-science public gets to hear these out of context and thinks of them as evidence of fraud. As an example which applies to simulation, in physics: "Theorists don't believe each other, experimentalists don't believe their results and computational physicists don't believe themselves." Which is really to say that computational physicists are always on the hunt for artifacts (read: wrong answers) due to the simulation process; these are distinct from incorrect theories.
Before you conclude the innocence or guilt of the CRU folk from something you heard from some other person who wasn't even commenting on their situation, let the investigation look at all the data.
If there's any sexism, I've seen no proof it's internal to FOSS.
Are you raising the subject of sexism just based on the fact that only 1.5% of FOSS developers are women?
Yes, as opposed to 28% in proprietary software (http://www.openwebvancouver.ca/sites/default/files/byron-women_in_open_source.pdf, p. 14-17). If it were as simple as "this trait [of willingness to do significant unpaid work] is far less common in women than men," then you'd expect that no volunteer organization to have a significant population of female members. But peace corps volunteers are 60% female (http://www.peacecorps.gov/wws/enewsletter/archives/may09.html).
I'm inclined to agree with you that women are not attracted to programming in general because of social factors external to the programming world, but there are definitely internal factors as well. (As evidence, I cite the fact of active research in the field of physics education toward understanding why women initially do well in introductory courses, but progressively drop off in higher-level courses. Mind you, this research is done by real physicists.) Most technical fields suffer from this. Non-commercial programming doesn't require a different level of competence than commercial programming; free software approaches problems of similar difficulty and scale as non-free software, therefore a difference between men and women (if one exists!) in interest or competence doesn't account for the large difference in female participation. I'd bet money that there are numerous causes which the FOSS community will need lots of time to sort out and repair, but they're not all invisible.
Bruce Byfield touches on part of the problem (http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3838186_2/Sexism-Open-Source-Softwares-Dirty-Little-Secret.htm): When an incident occurs where a joke unintentionally offends, the person who made the joke inevitably says something to the effect of "it was just a joke, chill out." This only serves to alienate women (and other offended groups), rather than re-gain their confidence. This applies in the cases of all mistakes, particularly on the part of leadership, which affect others. A failure to acknowledge the error will only persuade people to leave the community.
Defending the mistake is the wrong thing to do, and will only make the offended people more angry because most human beings do not like having their feelings and opinions ignored (I offer a lifetime warranty on this technique for alienating people). The excuse, "it was just a joke," essentially invalidates the opinion of the offended people, whether or not the defendant intends (you might notice that people who make excuses excessively have few to no friends). The correct thing to do is actually apologize. To understand this process the apologetic party must make an attempt to stand in the other party's shoes, then coherently address their concerns. To effectively show concern for the complainant, the person apologizing must be brave about it and never mount a defense. The process follows:
1) Do NOT defend actions. Do NOT put the burden on the other party; specifically, use active first person verbs ("I made...", "I will...", etc.), and do not use the passive voice ("I was misunderstood...") as it contains an implicit "by [someone]," effectively deflecting responsibility.
2) Acknowledge the other person's feelings. (Examples: Formal; "I understand that you are uncomfortable with something I [said/did]." Less Formal; "I get that you're pissed at me.")
3) Acknowledge responsibility. (Formal; "This arose from [an action I took/a statement I made]." Less Formal; "I messed up.")
4) Cite specific failure. (Formal; "I did not foresee the [negative outcome(s)/implicit message(s)] which I [caused/expounded]." Less formal; "I didn't know [it] was meaningful to you.")
5a) If a lesson was learned state the lesson. (Formal; "In the future I will be more aware of the impact my [w
I often use OpenOffice Math when writing, and it doesn't render correctly in word when I save as .doc, so I always save as .odt and send PDFs to the unenlightened when I need to share with them.
I am tired of Mr. Thompson's flawed argument that anyone effectively "trained" on any violent video game anywhere. Firing a rifle/pistol/whatever in a video game is nothing like firing its real-life equivalent. For starters, breathing comes into play, as well as the weight of the weapon and the motion of the trigger finger. A video game controller allows you to separate all these things from the motion of the crosshairs. Your thumb and pinky move separately rather nicely, the controller itself is fairly light weight, and when you breathe, the joystick doesn't move. Nobody can train for firing a real, live gun by shooting at elites and grunts with illuminated pixels!
I find it interesting that nobody has argued over the enormous difference between a FPS game and firing a real weapon. The two skill sets don't even begin to translate. Essentially, all this hubub over videogame violence from uneducated individuals has NO real-life basis; one may argue infinitely that violent gaming may make some people numb to the perception of violence, but videogames do not even begin to build weapon handling skills.
Hang on now! We can't let people take the blame for their own actions! That's what lawyers call attractive nuisance. If a kid down the street steals gasoline from your car and severely burns himself, OF COURSE it's your fault! You parked the damn thing in your driveway!
I'm a casual observer in this field, so someone correct me if need be.
Typically, with encryption, the time required to brute-force attack is exponential to the number of bits. So:
let n = the number of bits in the encryption key
let t = time required to crack said encryption
and a = an arbitrary constant
typically t is proportional to 2^n.
So, when you encrypt with a 128-bit key, t = a * 2^128
But if you use a 64-bit key twice, then t = 2a * 2^64 = a * 2^65 since all you have to do is crack a 64-bit key, then crack another.
As you can see, using two passes with a 64-bit key is 2^63 times worse than just using a 128-bit key once.
Did everything from cosmology to genetics. He was even sentenced to death, but never executed, by the USSR for defection.
For example: he predicted the strength of the cosmic microwave background about 20 years before it was actually observed and explained alpha decay of radioactive isotopes through quantum tunneling.
Take Hurricane Katrina for example (Get them -1 mods ready!). There are currently 35,000 people missing and about 1600 dead accounted for. Let's assume that there are 5,000 dead, since that's a nice, round number and doesn't seem too far-fetched to me. That means that there are 5,000 fewer people who may later reproduce and spawn children that are more likely than others to habitate sites that are subject to cataclysmic weather. Evolution, folks! They were not selected.
I've been hearing about hydrogen for the past few years now. Everybody's been SO EXCITED, but it still continues to piss me off: Where the fuck do we get the hydrogen without using fossil fuels? And if we do use fossil fuels how the hell is this better than just burning the stuff in an engine of any kind?
Does anybody have a straight answer to this? Or should I just continue to bitch about how we should be researching alternatives (more efficient solar power, bio-fuels, etc.)?
It's not that measuring intelligence is taboo. It's simply that not a single one of us would tolerate being pushed out of a job because an entirely unrelated test spits out a number that is lower than the number written down by some accountant. As has been pointed out multiple times in the comments, we human beings have many differing abilities. Some of us are great at designing race cars, some of us are good at driving race cars, and some are good at repairing race cars. Obviously, there are many other traits possessed by humans, but experiences in one field can oftentimes be useful in any of the others.
If you take a limited sample of someone's abilities, and from that decide that they clearly can't perform the task at hand without giving them so much as the courtesy of an interview, then you not only harm that individual, but society as a whole by potentially shutting out new ideas and, hence, progress.
Theoretically, when spyware has been installed you clicked the almighty "yes" button. The reason the kids will get prosecuted for hacking only within the scope of a very broad, ignorant definition of hacking and any large corporation never will is because the kids probably can't put up a good legal fight unless their father happens to be a big shareholder in a large corporation. Unfortunately, the corporations can always afford to hire a very large number of very intelligent lawyers, so they are essentially legally untouchable.
I'm not trolling with this. I honestly only use pen and paper for appointments. I can't handle scheduling tasks on my computer and then synching to a palm, etc., etc. All the duplicity just slows me down. If I just carry a small planner with me and a pen, I've got everything written down all the time. Best of all, it works during power outages (never read in moon light?) and the batteries never die.
What if P2Pers were to use multiple hash functions to check files? SHA1 and MD5 sums use two very different methods to compute the hash for a file, so wouldn't using multiple hash functions mostly eliminate junk files?
How is this not a contribution to the entire world? Because cruise missiles are primarily intended to blow shit up? He could just as easily be designing pilotless orbital vehicles for the purpose of inexpensively launching satellites. While the X-Prize is nice, the fact of the matter is that the majority of space launches are unmanned and I think the X-Prize goal of getting two men into space and back safely is very nice indeed (afterall, we need manned launches, too), but slightly misguided. Maybe it should be for an unmanned craft of some kind that can put something into orbit and then two weeks later retrieve it.
Or what about the shipping department? Overseas shipping is amazingly expensive. If stuff could be sent by way of self-guided cruise missile, it'd be cheaper to ship and a hell of a lot faster.
I may be a little naive to think that stuff could be shipped overseas by way of missile, but unmanned orbital placement is far more profitable than X-Prize-type stuff and will be used far more often as a result.
I remember something like this being tried about 5 years ago. It had the amateur radio community in an uproar. Something to do with street lights re-radiating the high-speed internet data in the form of electromagnetic energy. Apparently they did little to fix it. Shame; I wanted to be the first one on my block to have the other cable.
1) Engine displacement
Larger engines draw more air/fuel mixture into the cylinders, then burn it.
2) Number of cylinders
In an internal combustion engine, the cylinders are constantly accelerating, therefore, more cylinders = more energy consumption just to keep the engine going.
3) Vehicle weight
Heavier vehicles take more energy to accelerate and increase the amount of friction in the wheel bearings.
4) Aerodynamics
Vehicles that are less aerodynamic lose more energy to wind resistance. Opening a window affects wind resistance, too.
5) Transmission
If your transmission is better matched to the speeds at which you commonly drive and the range of rotational speeds at which the engine runs most efficiently, you get better gas mileage.
6) Engine care
If you keep your oil pan full and change it often enough, your engine will continue to run nicely for a very long time. Wear produces small leaks over time, which affect gas mileage by sapping power and causing incomplete combustion in the cylinders.
7) Intake system
A friend of mine switched to a high-flow air filter and gained 3 miles per U.S. gallon. This is because the engine doesn't have to work as hard to take air in to the cylinders as a result of higher flow rates. A higher possible flow rate results in less vacuum at a given engine speed. Also, carburetion vs. fuel injection makes a difference. While a well-tuned carburetor is just as good as fuel injection, carburetors are subject to gasoline loss due to evaporation.
8) Exhaust system
The engine also has to push exhaust gases out. A less restricted exhaust system makes that require less work. I've heard of improvements ranging from 0 to 5 miles per gallon as a result of switching from a stock muffler to an irritating glass pack muffler.
9) Driving style
If you drive faster, it takes extra energy to get to gain those precious miles per hour. If you regularly run the engine to the red line, you consume gas much more quickly than someone who keeps it in that range of max efficieny most of the time. If you run your air conditioner, the compressor for the refrigerant consumes a significant amount of gas. (The heater doesn't, though, since it runs off the same system as the radiator, which works all the time that the engine is running.) If you have a gazillion watt stereo system, it consumes energy through your car's alternator. If you don't believe me on that one, look in a physics textbook. Oh yes, and my favorite, if you drive with one foot on the brake pedal at all times, you'll sap energy and wear your brake pads down.
It's idling to make everyone think the registry is full of amazing things.
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!!! They took the computer, which was a fun toy, and turned it into something more like the car. It's yours, but because of non-standard bolts and some black boxes, you can hardly do anything with your car without being certified by some dealership or whatever. This makes me so angry.
On a not-so-side note... anyone up for buying up non-DRMed computers when the mad rush to ditch them is on with the psychotic intention of building a really big Beowulf cluster? What can be done with the cluster doesn't require much imagination... >:D
Can I make a beowulf cluster with that? ;D
I'll do it. Where's the SCO office building, exactly? I need a street address.
But where's the PROOF?
I find it interesting to note that all these worms are recognized as malware only because they cause a massive amount of traffic from their replication. If someone were to write a worm that spread through email, but rather than mass-mailing at an enormous pace, sent one email every hour or so, I wonder how long it would take the computer security industry to recognize it for what it is and fix it.
"We know from the attempted jamming of our GPS (global positioning system, which relies on satellites) during OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) that our enemies are going to try to deny us from using space."
Yeah, right. A ground based attempt at jamming signals used for guidance of weapons and stuff just shows so much eagerness on part of the U.S.'s so called "enemies" to challenge them in space. Most of the countries that the U.S. considers hostile are entirely incapable of anything near getting a satellite into orbit. I suppose they (the U.S.'s enemies) are next going to make rocket propelled grenades that can orbit the earth and knock out a GPS satellite... about the same time the U.S. finally gets its smelly fingers out of business that ain't theirs.