Interestingly, Bill Gates solicited submissions similar to the ones the Google contest was intended to solicit, back in the mid 1990s, prior to completing his book "The Road Ahead". This was right around the time he founded "the William H. Gates Foundation", which was later renamed to "the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation".
The problem with Cell is that in a general purpose computer, threads need to talk to each other; you can't just have non-barriered pipelines you keep fed. That's OK for some types of specialized processing, but most of that type of processing is going onto general purpose GPUs these days (e.g. OpenCL), rather than building specialized hardware for it.
A personally would have liked to work on a port of xnu to the Cell architecture, since I think it would have yielded a lot of useful information about the OS from a non-ccNUMA standpoint, and would have potentially improved the code, but really, these days I'd be more likely to try and port it to a Tilera chip, since it has a larger number of CPUs to deal with, and it'd get you to where you want to be when companies like Intel finally catch up with them on processor-on-die count. It's a lot easier to build large and scale down than it is to buld smal and add on ad hoc to scale up.
Passed over in favor of a plane-like vehicle that would need runways to take off and land, and which had fuel tank requirements which were technically impossible. Looks like the government made the right choice of contractor on that one... the only thing the space-plane design had going for it was the linear aerospike engine, which the DC-X could have had as well, if not for the patent issues.
Here's hoping China or some other country that ignores US patents puts together a VTOL SSTO craft like the DC-X with all the pieces that can't be put together for the next 20 years because of patents that aren't being used for anything, and then builds enough of them that we can start buying them used.
My guess is the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. I expect that Anderson tried to define "all recipients of demand letters" as a class, and RIAA argued that that can not constitute a class because it has immunity under Noerr-Pennington, per Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc. 1684 (2006):
Probably, the specific interpretation of BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516, 525 (2002). The argument would be that if the lawsuit was able to impose RICO liability on RIAA for sending the demand letter, then it would burden RIAA's ability to settle legal claims short of filing a lawsuit. RICO specifically provides for private enforcement and treble damages.
This is all predicated on the demand letters being specifically for no more than treble actual damages, so it may not apply if RIAA was asking for statutory damages (which they were). There is also some question as to whether the demand letters were objectively baseless and thus fall within the doctrine's sham exception. So I see at least two ways to fight a dismissal on direct.
This happened the same day the CWA was reported as saying "contract talks with AT&T are not going well", 5 days after most of the employment contracts in California expired and AT&T tried to low-ball the healthcare benefits they'd be giving union workers in the future, and force a series of job cuts. One imagines that, in a down economy, AT&T felt they had their workers over a barrel, since job prospects are tighter these days.
It turns out that it's not as easy as declaring a project or buying a company. Most modern storage systems truly suck, at the drive firmware level, where there's nothing you can do about it without changing how disks are manufactured.
I don't see him being successful trying to turn Sun into "nCubed The Sequel", and I really doubt he'd try that.
That comparison chart is really wrong; I think it was done by someone who either never actually used DTrace, didn't know how DTrace works, or just hasn't used it well enough to be familiar with it.
DTrace instruments by placing an INT 3 (on other platforms, it's an illegal instruction) at the probe point and remembering where that was done. The trap handler then has a code path that knows about this, and shunts it over to DTrace for a probe lookup.
Pretty clearly, whoever wrote that chart has only used fbt (Function Boundary Tracing), and is not familiar with the fact that the trace points can pretty much be put at any instruction location where the instrumentation would not involve reentering the trap handler. This means any instruction, and it's done *without* using break points.
I really don't have time to fix this for them (and I doubt I'd get edit rights if it started making DTrace look relatively better anyway), but someone involved in the project should actually take a real look at the software they are trying to compete with before they so casually (and incorrectly) dismiss it.
I'm pretty sure "the 20th century" is right there already, if you can drag him to the library.
Note: This isn't going to work for people not affiliated with an institution. Both of these services make paper journal content available online for subscription fees paid by the institution (or business), so unless you are in the "bog boy clique", you're not going to have access to them, unless you pay through the nose.
``This thread's parent mocks, but I would not want to be "cured" if I indeed have it.''
That's where my mind immediately went, as soon as someone mentioned "treatment" and "long term remission of symptoms" in an earlier posting.
Just because someone removes or suppresses the root cause of you not learning social skills some 20 years after the window when supposedly normal people learn how to interact with each other without running little simulations of each other in their heads doesn't mean you will now somehow be magically gifted with those social skills you missed out on learning back in school.
What's worse, you might find that with the suppression of the root cause, you also suppressed the foundation on which you built your coping skills that you've developed subsequently is ripped out from under you -- which would be a much more traumatic situation than having your livelihood ripped out from under you, which the parent suggests might happen as well.
BOINC is interesting if your machine finds the aliens, and actually told you it did.
Galaxy Zoo is for when there is no fresh paint to watch dry.
In my physics classes in high school we DID things, and then we explained the math behind them, and why that was physics. Most interesting physics demonstrations involve statics, harmonic oscillation, analytical mechanics - physical motion - or at least the interesting ones do.
Sometimes we'd just start the week with letting people ask questions about things that made them curious that might be related to physics.
Here's a list of projects we did, and which your students could do:
- build bridges out of balsa wood to demonstrate statics principles and the ability to bear loads (by loading them up until they break) - build water balloon catapults and see who throws the balloons farthest - build ping-pong ball alcohol canons - launch model rockets, preferably with instrument payloads - build hover crafts using vacuum cleaner motors and race them down the hallway past the principals office - build a Focault's pendulum to demonstrate rotation of the earth - put a bowing ball on the end of a rope and show it doesn't smack you in the face because you let it go and it doesn't get energy added to the system on its way back - demonstrate the coefficient of sliding friction with a triangle block, a square block with a hile drilled through it, some twine tied through the hole, and a fishing scale - build a model roller coaster - build a tesla coil and use it to shoot aluminum rings cut from the ends of pipes up in the air - build a blower box with an orange traffic cone glued on top and float a ball there to demonstrate Bernoulli's principle - dig out the switch/relay/light boxes from the 1960's classes and wire them all together to build an adder - use a Van de Graff generator to make people's hair stand out straight from their heads - show them a Newton's Cradle execu-toy - put grapes in a microwave oven to demonstrate plasmas - make little boats with wedges in their backs, stick pieces of soap there, and race them to demonstrate surface tension - spin buckets of water without the water falling out - shock people with Leyden jars - build a Wimshurst generator - build a Sterling cycle engine with a bicycle wheel and rubber bands
And that is just stuff we DID, off the top of my head, 20+ years ago -- stuff I still REMEMBER to this day, in my day job as a SCIENTIST -- because I had a great physics teacher in High School.
At the time patent duration was shorter, per the patent act of 1790, and was decided by a board, not to exceed 14 years. In addition, it wasrequested that you have a working prototype of your invention that you could demonstrate for the patent office for the purposes of the parent examination process. There were other hard requirements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Act_of_1790.
So it's a little disingenuous to claim this as an example of why patents are a bad thing.
Your desktop is always out there somewhere, it's always booted, no matter where you go you get at it, and it's exactly the way it was the last time you used it, so you don't have to open a bunch of apps and change window sizes and locations to get things back to your baseline usable system state.
If your computer explodes, you get a new one, fire up the client, and you are exactly where you were before it exploded, including the cursor being in the middle of the word "amazing" in the document you were typing at the time.
If you go on vacation, you don't bring a laptop with you, you fire up the desktop in the hotel, and you're back on your own desktop, exactly where it was the last time you left off, with that email you were reading still on the screen.
If your battery dies or the local power goes out, you don't lose 2 hours of work.
If the mainframe it's running on starts on fire, the VM checkpoint image is reloaded on another mainframe half the world away, the IP address set is failed over, and after a hiccup measured in seconds, you are back to typing as if nothing had happened. For a slightly higher service level agreement, the VM is already mirrored on several servers (just swapped out most of the time on the non-primary), and there's no hiccup.
Everything's backed up without you have to run the backup locally.
The antivirus software runs on a VM that's not the VM being examined, so there's no way that malware can disable, remove, or oterwise get around it, since it's not running on the infected VM itself: goodbye Godel's theorem and the halting problem standing in the way of solving that problem, which, if we are honest, is never going to be completely solved on a non-hardware partitioned desktop or laptop....bottom line: there's a lot to recommend this approach to computing.
It's effectively impossible to willfully place something in the public domain, which is what this license attempts to do... the author is simply unable to legally disengage themselves entirely from a work of authorship under current law.
Specifically, placing something "in the public domain" does not waive express or implied warranties, fitness for a particular use, or merchantabiity. Neither does it disclaim direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages. So if this were applied to a piece of code, and that code was incorporated into, for example, a blood gas analyzer, and as a result of that incorporation, the analyzer displayed an incorrect result, leading to the death of a patient, you simply have no recourse as the author.
I'm also skeptical as to whether or not this license would be a legal tort at all -- there is no consideration remitted to the author, as there in effect is, with other licenses. The closest I think you can get to this idea is the BSD license, which associates a hold harmless clause with the licensing to prevent, as much as possible, the legal liability, as consideration by the licensee for rights to use the code of the licensor. That would (under the Berne Convention) give you a basis for a copyright infringement countersuit for illicit use of the material (with no tort in place, all rights revert to the author), but I'm pretty sure that the court awards for copyright infringment are going to be truly dwarfed by the liability awards for negligence resulting in a death.
It's an interesting license in a legal sense, since it points out the discontinuities present in current copyright law, but this is a very very bad license for anyone to actually use.
You don't need sonar. You need VLW radio receivers on the subs, and you need transmitter stations to send the date, which the French don't have, but that the British do: http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Longwave.htm. They already use this technology to transmit information updtates to subs, even when they are running dark.
For detection, you just need overflights by satellites or aircraft equipped with SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_aperture_radar. The Soviets used a satellite based system for submarine detection since the 1980s http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/bg466.cfm, and most western governments followed suit. Even the Canadians have flown SAR satellite constellations. The submarines, if they move, show up as surface lumps, and if don't mode, then your position is known (approximately) from where the lump last was.
So it's likely that at least a number of countries knew where both subs were, and at least the Brits could have sent a message to their sub indicating an impending close call -- which for this type of submarine, given that they don't play cat and mouse games with it, probably counts in nautical miles.
I have an incredible philosophical problem with any software designed to cause code to run as a result of you receiving an email, and which then takes that email as its input data, particularly if it starts processing it before it verifies the referential integrity of the MIME container(s) in the message.
The primary reason OutLook has been such a cesspit of exploits is "Exchange integration". Loosely translated, this means that it ignores encapsulation enforcement by starting to interpret the contents of an email prior to verifying that the container object for the email itself is intact and contains what the headers say it contains. That it also runs code in arbitrary and unverified DLLs registered to handle decoding a particular MIME type when you receive an email, and AGAIN without verifying the referential integrity of the container is almost criminal.
You take those pieces away, and the "neatly integrated" quickly becomes not nearly so "neatly".
I have to agree with one of the other posters, that the best example of this done correctly is the server-side AJAX integration that's used in Zimbra. For non-Zimbra solutions, recognizing dates as things you can put on a schedule or addresses or signatures as things you can attach to an address book entry is about a 90% solution, and doesn't require the risk of premature decoding to make it work. Apple's Mail.app does this rather well, although it also is starting down the "active email message" path-to-hell blazed by Outllook, at least it's not turned on in the preferences by default, and container integrity is checked up front.
"Hay, maybe if there weren't HB-1 visa holders filling the slots, there would be more American how got trained and got training for those positions."
Training and Education are not the answer to the lack of skilled workers.
Education is only a part of an answer if the person in question is educable. And then they have to have non-economic motivation for getting that education; with one exception, I've never had a good experience with a person who entered into a field of endeavor solely due to an economic motivation.
I've worked with brilliant engineers and scientists from all over the world; in fact, I pick my employers on the basis of whether or not I will end up working with smart people. Smart people have an intrinsically higher effective communication bandwidth because it takes less data exchanged to communicate with them.
No amount of training and education is going to turn 100 randomly selected -- to pick on a profession that's been hit with outsourcing, former call-center phone jockeys -- into world-class scientists and engineers. You might actually get several from that 100, after you invested a decade or more of effort in the process, but the ROI is just not there to make it worth it, either as a business or as a nation. The latency between when you need to hire them and when they are eventually qualified to fill the position is just too high, even if you were successful.
I have to agree with the people who've as much as suggested that the way to get qualified US citizens for jobs like these is to naturalize qualified foreign workers, turning them into US citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Who put the military in charge anyway?
Who is the General Relativity, and why does he think he can order us around; we're civilians, right?
-- Terry
Not to be an apologist, just stating facts...
Interestingly, Bill Gates solicited submissions similar to the ones the Google contest was intended to solicit, back in the mid 1990s, prior to completing his book "The Road Ahead". This was right around the time he founded "the William H. Gates Foundation", which was later renamed to "the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
He did this with an initial $94 million stock gift.
Now, while he's technically not identical to Microsoft... he's probably close enough.
-- Terry
The problem with Cell is that in a general purpose computer, threads need to talk to each other; you can't just have non-barriered pipelines you keep fed. That's OK for some types of specialized processing, but most of that type of processing is going onto general purpose GPUs these days (e.g. OpenCL), rather than building specialized hardware for it.
A personally would have liked to work on a port of xnu to the Cell architecture, since I think it would have yielded a lot of useful information about the OS from a non-ccNUMA standpoint, and would have potentially improved the code, but really, these days I'd be more likely to try and port it to a Tilera chip, since it has a larger number of CPUs to deal with, and it'd get you to where you want to be when companies like Intel finally catch up with them on processor-on-die count. It's a lot easier to build large and scale down than it is to buld smal and add on ad hoc to scale up.
-- Terry
Poor Delta Clipper...
Passed over in favor of a plane-like vehicle that would need runways to take off and land, and which had fuel tank requirements which were technically impossible. Looks like the government made the right choice of contractor on that one... the only thing the space-plane design had going for it was the linear aerospike engine, which the DC-X could have had as well, if not for the patent issues.
Here's hoping China or some other country that ignores US patents puts together a VTOL SSTO craft like the DC-X with all the pieces that can't be put together for the next 20 years because of patents that aren't being used for anything, and then builds enough of them that we can start buying them used.
-- Terry
IANAL, but I do read a heck of a lot.
My guess is the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. I expect that Anderson tried to define "all recipients of demand letters" as a class, and RIAA argued that that can not constitute a class because it has immunity under Noerr-Pennington, per Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc. 1684 (2006):
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2006/02/14/0455036.pdf
Probably, the specific interpretation of BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516, 525 (2002). The argument would be that if the lawsuit was able to impose RICO liability on RIAA for sending the demand letter, then it would burden RIAA's ability to settle legal claims short of filing a lawsuit. RICO specifically provides for private enforcement and treble damages.
This is all predicated on the demand letters being specifically for no more than treble actual damages, so it may not apply if RIAA was asking for statutory damages (which they were). There is also some question as to whether the demand letters were objectively baseless and thus fall within the doctrine's sham exception. So I see at least two ways to fight a dismissal on direct.
-- Terry
I was voting for the CWA as well...
This happened the same day the CWA was reported as saying "contract talks with AT&T are not going well", 5 days after most of the employment contracts in California expired and AT&T tried to low-ball the healthcare benefits they'd be giving union workers in the future, and force a series of job cuts. One imagines that, in a down economy, AT&T felt they had their workers over a barrel, since job prospects are tighter these days.
Here's a telecom industry rags take on the whole thing: http://www.fiercetelecom.com/special-reports/cwa-strike.
-- Terry
Larry already tried to make database hardware:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCUBE
It turns out that it's not as easy as declaring a project or buying a company. Most modern storage systems truly suck, at the drive firmware level, where there's nothing you can do about it without changing how disks are manufactured.
I don't see him being successful trying to turn Sun into "nCubed The Sequel", and I really doubt he'd try that.
-- Terry
That comparison chart is really wrong; I think it was done by someone who either never actually used DTrace, didn't know how DTrace works, or just hasn't used it well enough to be familiar with it.
DTrace instruments by placing an INT 3 (on other platforms, it's an illegal instruction) at the probe point and remembering where that was done. The trap handler then has a code path that knows about this, and shunts it over to DTrace for a probe lookup.
Pretty clearly, whoever wrote that chart has only used fbt (Function Boundary Tracing), and is not familiar with the fact that the trace points can pretty much be put at any instruction location where the instrumentation would not involve reentering the trap handler. This means any instruction, and it's done *without* using break points.
I really don't have time to fix this for them (and I doubt I'd get edit rights if it started making DTrace look relatively better anyway), but someone involved in the project should actually take a real look at the software they are trying to compete with before they so casually (and incorrectly) dismiss it.
-- Terry
The University of Oklahoma participates in JSTOR:
http://www.jstor.org/
They also appear to be EBSCO participants:
http://search.ebscohost.com/
I'm pretty sure "the 20th century" is right there already, if you can drag him to the library.
Note: This isn't going to work for people not affiliated with an institution. Both of these services make paper journal content available online for subscription fees paid by the institution (or business), so unless you are in the "bog boy clique", you're not going to have access to them, unless you pay through the nose.
-- Terry
To cure or not to cure?
``This thread's parent mocks, but I would not want to be "cured" if I indeed have it.''
That's where my mind immediately went, as soon as someone mentioned "treatment" and "long term remission of symptoms" in an earlier posting.
Just because someone removes or suppresses the root cause of you not learning social skills some 20 years after the window when supposedly normal people learn how to interact with each other without running little simulations of each other in their heads doesn't mean you will now somehow be magically gifted with those social skills you missed out on learning back in school.
What's worse, you might find that with the suppression of the root cause, you also suppressed the foundation on which you built your coping skills that you've developed subsequently is ripped out from under you -- which would be a much more traumatic situation than having your livelihood ripped out from under you, which the parent suggests might happen as well.
-- Terry
"Running a device off of the human metabolism is an excellent way to ensure that it functions for the life of the patient."
Uh, all these devices function for the life of the patient, give or take a few minutes...
-- Terry
rubber band heat engine + other search resources
Here is an example of the rubber band engine (near the bottom of the page):
http://www.arborsci.com/CoolStuff/cool26.htm
Here is a short video:
http://www.arborsci.com/CoolStuff/RubberBandEngine.mpg
And HERE is a search engine that lets you search 51 physics demonstration websites at once:
http://physicslearning.colorado.edu:9999/vestris/PIRASearchBy.asp ...I hope you and your students have fun!
-- Terry
You are teaching them science is boring. Stop it!
BOINC is interesting if your machine finds the aliens, and actually told you it did.
Galaxy Zoo is for when there is no fresh paint to watch dry.
In my physics classes in high school we DID things, and then we explained the math behind them, and why that was physics. Most interesting physics demonstrations involve statics, harmonic oscillation, analytical mechanics - physical motion - or at least the interesting ones do.
Sometimes we'd just start the week with letting people ask questions about things that made them curious that might be related to physics.
Here's a list of projects we did, and which your students could do:
- build bridges out of balsa wood to demonstrate statics principles and the ability to bear loads (by loading them up until they break)
- build water balloon catapults and see who throws the balloons farthest
- build ping-pong ball alcohol canons
- launch model rockets, preferably with instrument payloads
- build hover crafts using vacuum cleaner motors and race them down the hallway past the principals office
- build a Focault's pendulum to demonstrate rotation of the earth
- put a bowing ball on the end of a rope and show it doesn't smack you in the face because you let it go and it doesn't get energy added to the system on its way back
- demonstrate the coefficient of sliding friction with a triangle block, a square block with a hile drilled through it, some twine tied through the hole, and a fishing scale
- build a model roller coaster
- build a tesla coil and use it to shoot aluminum rings cut from the ends of pipes up in the air
- build a blower box with an orange traffic cone glued on top and float a ball there to demonstrate Bernoulli's principle
- dig out the switch/relay/light boxes from the 1960's classes and wire them all together to build an adder
- use a Van de Graff generator to make people's hair stand out straight from their heads
- show them a Newton's Cradle execu-toy
- put grapes in a microwave oven to demonstrate plasmas
- make little boats with wedges in their backs, stick pieces of soap there, and race them to demonstrate surface tension
- spin buckets of water without the water falling out
- shock people with Leyden jars
- build a Wimshurst generator
- build a Sterling cycle engine with a bicycle wheel and rubber bands
And that is just stuff we DID, off the top of my head, 20+ years ago -- stuff I still REMEMBER to this day, in my day job as a SCIENTIST -- because I had a great physics teacher in High School.
-- Terry
At the time patent duration was shorter, per the patent act of 1790, and was decided by a board, not to exceed 14 years. In addition, it wasrequested that you have a working prototype of your invention that you could demonstrate for the patent office for the purposes of the parent examination process. There were other hard requirements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Act_of_1790.
So it's a little disingenuous to claim this as an example of why patents are a bad thing.
-- Terry
Imagine this...
Your desktop is always out there somewhere, it's always booted, no matter where you go you get at it, and it's exactly the way it was the last time you used it, so you don't have to open a bunch of apps and change window sizes and locations to get things back to your baseline usable system state.
If your computer explodes, you get a new one, fire up the client, and you are exactly where you were before it exploded, including the cursor being in the middle of the word "amazing" in the document you were typing at the time.
If you go on vacation, you don't bring a laptop with you, you fire up the desktop in the hotel, and you're back on your own desktop, exactly where it was the last time you left off, with that email you were reading still on the screen.
If your battery dies or the local power goes out, you don't lose 2 hours of work.
If the mainframe it's running on starts on fire, the VM checkpoint image is reloaded on another mainframe half the world away, the IP address set is failed over, and after a hiccup measured in seconds, you are back to typing as if nothing had happened. For a slightly higher service level agreement, the VM is already mirrored on several servers (just swapped out most of the time on the non-primary), and there's no hiccup.
Everything's backed up without you have to run the backup locally.
The antivirus software runs on a VM that's not the VM being examined, so there's no way that malware can disable, remove, or oterwise get around it, since it's not running on the infected VM itself: goodbye Godel's theorem and the halting problem standing in the way of solving that problem, which, if we are honest, is never going to be completely solved on a non-hardware partitioned desktop or laptop. ...bottom line: there's a lot to recommend this approach to computing.
-- Terry
Certain aspects of authorship are inalienable
It's effectively impossible to willfully place something in the public domain, which is what this license attempts to do... the author is simply unable to legally disengage themselves entirely from a work of authorship under current law.
Specifically, placing something "in the public domain" does not waive express or implied warranties, fitness for a particular use, or merchantabiity. Neither does it disclaim direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages. So if this were applied to a piece of code, and that code was incorporated into, for example, a blood gas analyzer, and as a result of that incorporation, the analyzer displayed an incorrect result, leading to the death of a patient, you simply have no recourse as the author.
I'm also skeptical as to whether or not this license would be a legal tort at all -- there is no consideration remitted to the author, as there in effect is, with other licenses. The closest I think you can get to this idea is the BSD license, which associates a hold harmless clause with the licensing to prevent, as much as possible, the legal liability, as consideration by the licensee for rights to use the code of the licensor. That would (under the Berne Convention) give you a basis for a copyright infringement countersuit for illicit use of the material (with no tort in place, all rights revert to the author), but I'm pretty sure that the court awards for copyright infringment are going to be truly dwarfed by the liability awards for negligence resulting in a death.
It's an interesting license in a legal sense, since it points out the discontinuities present in current copyright law, but this is a very very bad license for anyone to actually use.
-- Terry
Be careful if you change your name... remember what happened with poor Bobby Tables.
http://xkcd.com/327/
-- Terry
You don't need sonar. You need VLW radio receivers on the subs, and you need transmitter stations to send the date, which the French don't have, but that the British do: http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Longwave.htm. They already use this technology to transmit information updtates to subs, even when they are running dark.
For detection, you just need overflights by satellites or aircraft equipped with SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_aperture_radar. The Soviets used a satellite based system for submarine detection since the 1980s http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/bg466.cfm, and most western governments followed suit. Even the Canadians have flown SAR satellite constellations. The submarines, if they move, show up as surface lumps, and if don't mode, then your position is known (approximately) from where the lump last was.
So it's likely that at least a number of countries knew where both subs were, and at least the Brits could have sent a message to their sub indicating an impending close call -- which for this type of submarine, given that they don't play cat and mouse games with it, probably counts in nautical miles.
-- Terry
Make sure you are using cat 5 bailing wire.
-- Terry
If we are voting, I vote for Castrix
-- Terry
MOD PARENT FUNNY PLEASE
I have an incredible philosophical problem with any software designed to cause code to run as a result of you receiving an email, and which then takes that email as its input data, particularly if it starts processing it before it verifies the referential integrity of the MIME container(s) in the message.
The primary reason OutLook has been such a cesspit of exploits is "Exchange integration". Loosely translated, this means that it ignores encapsulation enforcement by starting to interpret the contents of an email prior to verifying that the container object for the email itself is intact and contains what the headers say it contains. That it also runs code in arbitrary and unverified DLLs registered to handle decoding a particular MIME type when you receive an email, and AGAIN without verifying the referential integrity of the container is almost criminal.
You take those pieces away, and the "neatly integrated" quickly becomes not nearly so "neatly".
I have to agree with one of the other posters, that the best example of this done correctly is the server-side AJAX integration that's used in Zimbra. For non-Zimbra solutions, recognizing dates as things you can put on a schedule or addresses or signatures as things you can attach to an address book entry is about a 90% solution, and doesn't require the risk of premature decoding to make it work. Apple's Mail.app does this rather well, although it also is starting down the "active email message" path-to-hell blazed by Outllook, at least it's not turned on in the preferences by default, and container integrity is checked up front.
-- Terry
Video game violence and situation comedies are obviously ruining this nation.
This is why we have so many random acts of violence and comedy in the streets.
Wait. I guess kids aren't the mindless copy-drones they're made out to be.
Never mind.
-- Terry
Back in the uucp days, we named our machine "gang".
Think about it...
-- Terry
"Hay, maybe if there weren't HB-1 visa holders filling the slots, there would be more American how got trained and got training for those positions."
Training and Education are not the answer to the lack of skilled workers.
Education is only a part of an answer if the person in question is educable. And then they have to have non-economic motivation for getting that education; with one exception, I've never had a good experience with a person who entered into a field of endeavor solely due to an economic motivation.
I've worked with brilliant engineers and scientists from all over the world; in fact, I pick my employers on the basis of whether or not I will end up working with smart people. Smart people have an intrinsically higher effective communication bandwidth because it takes less data exchanged to communicate with them.
No amount of training and education is going to turn 100 randomly selected -- to pick on a profession that's been hit with outsourcing, former call-center phone jockeys -- into world-class scientists and engineers. You might actually get several from that 100, after you invested a decade or more of effort in the process, but the ROI is just not there to make it worth it, either as a business or as a nation. The latency between when you need to hire them and when they are eventually qualified to fill the position is just too high, even if you were successful.
I have to agree with the people who've as much as suggested that the way to get qualified US citizens for jobs like these is to naturalize qualified foreign workers, turning them into US citizens.
-- Terry