The point is that there is not much choice if it is part of an interoperability standard. You simply cannot view a H.264 video on the web with a browser that only supports WebM, just as you'll have no luck to watch NTSC broadcasts with a PAL-only TV. Of course you are free to try to sell that PAL-only TV in the US, but you won't succeed, not because it is bad (the same TV may sell like crazy in Europe), but because it doesn't work with US broadcasts.
You only have a choice if there are two options that both work.
If no one is in the forest, do trees actually fall? Because until you've answered this question with an affirmative "yes", your question doesn't even make sense.
Note that the fact that when you go into a forest and find trees which look as if they had fallen is no proof that they actually did fall. That's true even if on your previous visit they have still been standing.
Quite right. Perhaps the trees were tired and needed to lie down.
Man, you would run md5sum on the actual compromised box??
I would use my own checksumming binary (using its own, statically linked copy of the hash algorithm), with a name not revealing its purpose. Still not 100% protection, but only targeted attacks from someone with insider knowledge or possibly someone who did a very thorough analysis of the systems could defeat that one.
Why not do it from a ISO booted linux, and nfs share the whole box , so you can sum it from the outside.
The nfs could be hacked to give the original binaries to your outside server.
Mozilla and Opera also included WebM in their browsers with the same purpose, but they never discarded H.264 because most of the video out there is coded with it.
What? Firefox didn't have H.264 support until late 2012.
See? Since they didn't have it, they couldn't discard it. In other news, lynx also never discarded support for H.264.
You have to start with facts because without facts you don't even know that you have something you need a model for. You don't just invent models and then look if you can find something in nature which fits that model. You start with facts you find, and try to make a model which reproduces those facts. You generally try to be compatible with existing models in regimes where those didn't fail, so that would be the first test of your model (well, you might at the very first also do some consistency check). Then you derive predictions from that model and test those predictions with reality. You'll usually start with things which already have been measured, and only after your model has survived that test you start proposing new experiments.
All you have to do to access it is to give them the right amount of money (or to be at an institution which does so, as for example an university).
However, these days many physics articles are also found on arXiv so it makes sense to search for the article there. And indeed, this article can be found there. The journal reference given there also makes it clear that it is really the same article.
I don't like spending modpoints on anonymous cowards.
Why not? Moderation is done for the sake of the readers, so they can more easily spot posts which may be worth reading. This primary function of moderation is independent of someone posting as AC or not.
Moderation also has secondary effects on the posters, to encourage writing good posts. For logged-in users, it changes their Karma. For ACs, it affects the number of allowed posts that day (and probably also the time until the next post is possible) from the same IP. While the effect is not the same for logged-in posters and ACs (and in particular, for ACs it is no lasting effect), there is an effect on ACs as well. Thus even if you only care about the secondary effects, moderating ACs makes sense.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
If no one is in the forest, do trees actually fall? Because until you've answered this question with an affirmative "yes", your question doesn't even make sense.
Note that the fact that when you go into a forest and find trees which look as if they had fallen is no proof that they actually did fall. That's true even if on your previous visit they have still been standing.
That would be great news for the tree cutters: They could use the heart beat signal to locate the valuable trees, and the device on the trees. Then it's just a matter of carefully removing that device and putting it on a nearby uninteresting tree before cutting the valuable one.
Or maybe just make your own cellular signal near where you want to cut the tree (it's not as if anyone else in the middle of the rain forest will notice), and look for the signal of the device trying to phone home in order to find and remove it. Bonus: It even helps with finding the valuable trees, because those will be the ones equipped with the device.
It only makes a sound if someone or something is around to hear it because Sound is a sensory media conveyed by vibrations in the air and interpreted by the ears and brain. However, it will vibrate the air a little, regardless of ears being around or not.
Tune in next time to Slashdot, where we throw Timothy in to an Electric Fence! Brainiac - electric fences
So if I put a microphone in the forest which transmits to a speaker close to me, and a tree falls close to the microphone causing me to hear the sound of the falling tree on my speaker, does the falling tree actually make a sound, or does only my speaker make a sound while the falling tree only causes air vibrations to be turned into electrical signals by the microphone?
I've not actually read the original Einstein papers, but I would not be much surprised if his equations were closer to what Electrical Engineers get to deal with than what Theoretical Physicists do.
Indeed. When Minkowski reformulated it with 4D tensors, Einstein complained that he didn't recognize his own theory any more.
However, for General Relativity, Einstein had to go that path as well, and learned to love the power of it.
The difference is whether the objects are bound. The distance between far-away galaxies is arbitrary. The size of an atom is determined by quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.
Imagine two objects lying on the floor. If you drag them away from each other, their distance grows. However if they are connected with a string, the distance won't grow. The string holds them together.
My comment was in jest, referencing a well-known quote from the movie "Back to the Future". Thanks for making me explain it!!
Sorry, in my last time travel I've passed by the film studios where they made that movie. Well, I did some mistake. Fortunately it did not do very much damage, but one effect is that this sentence is now missing from the movie. Sorry about that.
A bit of googling came up with this page where some statistical data is given:
The odds a driver stopped by the police for speeding will be ticketed are 1 in 1.37 (73%). Men fare slightly worse than women, with 1 in 1.34 (75%) male drivers getting tickets compared to 1 in 1.44 (69%) female drivers.
The source of the numbers (revealed if you click on them on the web page) is given as:
Durose MR. Characteristics of Drivers Stopped by Police, 2002. Bureau of Justice Statistics. June 2006.
You think so? You clearly don't know the Slashdot Secret Police, who will get everyone who... wait, there are black helicopters approaching... NO CARRIER
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, H.666 will be quite cheap. All payment they demand will be your soul.
The point is that there is not much choice if it is part of an interoperability standard. You simply cannot view a H.264 video on the web with a browser that only supports WebM, just as you'll have no luck to watch NTSC broadcasts with a PAL-only TV. Of course you are free to try to sell that PAL-only TV in the US, but you won't succeed, not because it is bad (the same TV may sell like crazy in Europe), but because it doesn't work with US broadcasts.
You only have a choice if there are two options that both work.
If no one is in the forest, do trees actually fall? Because until you've answered this question with an affirmative "yes", your question doesn't even make sense.
Note that the fact that when you go into a forest and find trees which look as if they had fallen is no proof that they actually did fall. That's true even if on your previous visit they have still been standing.
Quite right. Perhaps the trees were tired and needed to lie down.
Are the trees there if nobody looks?
I would use my own checksumming binary (using its own, statically linked copy of the hash algorithm), with a name not revealing its purpose. Still not 100% protection, but only targeted attacks from someone with insider knowledge or possibly someone who did a very thorough analysis of the systems could defeat that one.
The nfs could be hacked to give the original binaries to your outside server.
Pfft... I hacked your mom last night.
Too bad you left your fingerprints on the axe ...
Thank god that I use a five-digit password instead, that's so much more secure.
BTW, I use the same combination on my luggage.
Mozilla and Opera also included WebM in their browsers with the same purpose, but they never discarded H.264 because most of the video out there is coded with it.
What? Firefox didn't have H.264 support until late 2012.
See? Since they didn't have it, they couldn't discard it.
In other news, lynx also never discarded support for H.264.
Who said that it has to be the server which asks for it?
Simple: The referees they sent it to for peer review didn't understand it either.
You have to start with facts because without facts you don't even know that you have something you need a model for. You don't just invent models and then look if you can find something in nature which fits that model. You start with facts you find, and try to make a model which reproduces those facts. You generally try to be compatible with existing models in regimes where those didn't fail, so that would be the first test of your model (well, you might at the very first also do some consistency check). Then you derive predictions from that model and test those predictions with reality. You'll usually start with things which already have been measured, and only after your model has survived that test you start proposing new experiments.
Since a paradox is not a feature of the Universe; it is a feature of a limited mind trying to understand the Universe.
Physics is all about understanding the universe with our limited mind.
All you have to do to access it is to give them the right amount of money (or to be at an institution which does so, as for example an university).
However, these days many physics articles are also found on arXiv so it makes sense to search for the article there. And indeed, this article can be found there. The journal reference given there also makes it clear that it is really the same article.
Note that everything on arXiv is Open Access.
Why not? Moderation is done for the sake of the readers, so they can more easily spot posts which may be worth reading. This primary function of moderation is independent of someone posting as AC or not.
Moderation also has secondary effects on the posters, to encourage writing good posts. For logged-in users, it changes their Karma. For ACs, it affects the number of allowed posts that day (and probably also the time until the next post is possible) from the same IP. While the effect is not the same for logged-in posters and ACs (and in particular, for ACs it is no lasting effect), there is an effect on ACs as well. Thus even if you only care about the secondary effects, moderating ACs makes sense.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
If no one is in the forest, do trees actually fall? Because until you've answered this question with an affirmative "yes", your question doesn't even make sense.
Note that the fact that when you go into a forest and find trees which look as if they had fallen is no proof that they actually did fall. That's true even if on your previous visit they have still been standing.
That would be great news for the tree cutters: They could use the heart beat signal to locate the valuable trees, and the device on the trees. Then it's just a matter of carefully removing that device and putting it on a nearby uninteresting tree before cutting the valuable one.
Or maybe just make your own cellular signal near where you want to cut the tree (it's not as if anyone else in the middle of the rain forest will notice), and look for the signal of the device trying to phone home in order to find and remove it. Bonus: It even helps with finding the valuable trees, because those will be the ones equipped with the device.
Time to ruin the joooke.
It only makes a sound if someone or something is around to hear it because Sound is a sensory media conveyed by vibrations in the air and interpreted by the ears and brain.
However, it will vibrate the air a little, regardless of ears being around or not.
Tune in next time to Slashdot, where we throw Timothy in to an Electric Fence!
Brainiac - electric fences
So if I put a microphone in the forest which transmits to a speaker close to me, and a tree falls close to the microphone causing me to hear the sound of the falling tree on my speaker, does the falling tree actually make a sound, or does only my speaker make a sound while the falling tree only causes air vibrations to be turned into electrical signals by the microphone?
So you don't password-protect your private key?
Maybe it was an Open Source client, and they had to give you the source code to comply? :-)
Indeed. When Minkowski reformulated it with 4D tensors, Einstein complained that he didn't recognize his own theory any more.
However, for General Relativity, Einstein had to go that path as well, and learned to love the power of it.
The difference is whether the objects are bound. The distance between far-away galaxies is arbitrary. The size of an atom is determined by quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.
Imagine two objects lying on the floor. If you drag them away from each other, their distance grows. However if they are connected with a string, the distance won't grow. The string holds them together.
My comment was in jest, referencing a well-known quote from the movie "Back to the Future". Thanks for making me explain it!!
Sorry, in my last time travel I've passed by the film studios where they made that movie. Well, I did some mistake. Fortunately it did not do very much damage, but one effect is that this sentence is now missing from the movie. Sorry about that.
Oh god I hope you aren't a scientist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.27s_experiment_as_an_example_of_psychological_effects_in_scientific_methodology
A bit of googling came up with this page where some statistical data is given:
The odds a driver stopped by the police for speeding will be ticketed are 1 in 1.37 (73%). Men fare slightly worse than women, with 1 in 1.34 (75%) male drivers getting tickets compared to 1 in 1.44 (69%) female drivers.
The source of the numbers (revealed if you click on them on the web page) is given as:
Durose MR. Characteristics of Drivers Stopped by Police, 2002. Bureau of Justice Statistics. June 2006.
You think so? You clearly don't know the Slashdot Secret Police, who will get everyone who ... wait, there are black helicopters approaching ... NO CARRIER