which was a Good Thing for people who owned fax machines about a decade ago. Junk faxes were about to make faxes useless just as fax machines were becoming affordable and many small businesses were getting them, but they virtually disappeared from the face of the Earth when this became law. The only reason junk faxes still exist at all is not enough people are aware of the law.
This may not work as well for malware, as many of the creators are not only NOT in California, they're not even in the USA.
Forgot to mention, from that second link, on Jan 8 the comet will be right next to The Pleades or the "Seven Sisters", a small constellation of seven fairly bright (and many more not-quite-as-bright, as seen in binocs) stars. It should be very easy to find then, and not hard between now and then. If nothing else, scan your binocs around the area and look for the little ball of cotton...
"be able to be seen by the naked eye" "be visible to the naked eye"
which is more concise? which is prettier? which is clearer?
And is either one true? If you can locate and see the Andromeda galaxy with your undressed, er, unaided eye (I just barely can, and I'm in pretty dark skies 60 miles away from a major city), you might be able to see Comet Machholz unaided, but as of last night (dark skies before the moon rose) I can't, not without binoculars. Maybe it will be a little brighter over the next week or so.
I've been observing this comet since the start of December, thanks to a few pointers and charts on the newsgroup sci.astro.amateur. Even in the cities you should be able to see this comet, where skies are as bad as a full moon as we had a few days ago and I still saw it. 7.5x50 or even 10x50 binocs are perfect, but even smaller binocs should show the comet easily. Earlier this year I got 11x80 astronomical binoculars, which are just wondeful for this sort of thing. Here's a chart good through tonight (1/1/2005) and tomorrow: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/2004_Q2.gif Here's one good through the 10th, http://members.csolutions.net/fisherka/astronote/f inder/CometC2004Q2Tau1_10_05.gif that URL is one of the botom three current pics here: http://members.csolutions.net/fisherka/astronote/f inder/ More info and photographs on the newsgroup as well as all over the web, as always.
... and my comment was too simple and flippant (perhaps that's often a danger when discussing complicated and/or counterintuitive ideas such as this), but meant to convey that Einstein's findings point out that there's a closer relationship between space and time than many people realize, and than anyone thought of before Einstein.
The BETA groups now replaces the old way Google Groups works (worked?), and as most Usenet readers know, there's someone unhappy enough about it to spam their unhappiness to every group.
But someone posted a solution. Just use Google Groups from other English-speaking countries, such as:
I heard about the quake on the news, but it felt different when I read the following on one of the mailing lists I'm on. Maybe someone has a good God that can loan Undine an Iridium phone or something similar for long enough to call home.
Undine left Bangkok to travel to the south of Thailand just on Thursday. She called her mum yesterday, she was staying in a beach bungalow on the southern coast. I have spent the last 12 hours trying to get any word of her, to no avail.
We don't know where she is, we are afraid and worried. If any of you have any prayers to send to her, please do. We don't know where she is, if she is well or injured or dead, and if nobody hears from me for a while, I might have to go find her.
a text file and Edlin on an old MSDOS system. It seems crude by today's standards, but it's a vast improvement over those 800,000,000 3x5 cards he used before. Just think of the number of trees he saves...
This is virtually impossible!
on
Ho, Ho, Ho
·
· Score: 1
Write a traveling salesmen problem but instead of avoiding the same airport twice the variables would have to be dependant on making sure Santa does not stop at the same house twice.
While it's not too hard to get "good" solutions to airports, it's much harder to get an optimum airport solution. There are many times more houses (even limiting it to those where at least one good child lives) than airports, and the computational time of this problem increases with the square (or perhaps it's the factorial (!)) of the number of points, so this is practically impossible, even with all the world's computers working on it for a year (and remember, some bad children become good, and some good children become bad, some children grow up, others are born, so the problem changes every year). Thus, there is no Santa Claus.
And compute it to make him as efficient as possible.
Of course I'm totaly wrong about there not being a Santa Claus, and I must go to bed within the hour, but first leave out some milk and cookies.
But think of this: The existence of Santa Claus shows he has solved this problem, so he must have access to something Really Cool such as Quantum Computing!!!
Maybe we can get Mr. Claus to write a/. article about it. Gotta go, G'nite, all...
"We've recently had a code split at a project I'm leading."
So you WERE leading the whole project, now you're leading ONE of the forks? That's how I understand it.
TFQ is unclear on this, so I'm trusting the other posters who say that both forks are GPL. In this case it's technically fine to use the code while giving full credit, but from the tone of "is this ethically okay?" it seems the problem is more political than ethical. So...
Why not offer up any of the changes in YOUR fork in echange (even though they are technically available anyway through the GPL)? Are these not wanted? Why or why not?
What else is going on in this situation that you didn't tell us?
Why I believe this sig to be of interest.
on
Prime Obsession
·
· Score: 1
Thanks, I'd seen many that pointed out slashdot's 120 character limit on sigs, and I thought "Hmm, how can I take that idea, and nerd it up." This is what I came up with;)
Your sig is a remarkably amusing send-up of a tantializingly short note by a famous mathematician concerning one of the major mathematics problems of all time, whereas my sig just makes a pun on the simple physics equation "f = ma" and a quote from an old SF movie.
Surely your karma will soon exceed mine by a long shot. I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy...{sorry, another old movie quote}
Please use the URL feature that will auto-link a URL, as shown under the Submit button on the Post Comment page. Those of us who perfer to click rather than copy-paste and then fix the link.
In your post it has a space that's not in the actual link, dunno why/. does that to a line of text, but the URL thing doesn't add spaces [to the ACTUAL LINK - the text still shows a space in hawkingexo].
Bulk mailing of an unsolicited message is unquestionably spam.
In this example, she can take an ad out in a newspaper/magazine/meduium other local realtors would read, offering to add them to her mailing list. Yes, this involves paying money for advertising, but advertising the list through unsolicited bulk email, while 'free' (no incremental cost above email access), is spam.
... I sure wish the FTC would use that definition, otherwise we're bound to start getting tons of political unsolicited messages (see my journal about the Kerry spam, though of course that was just a scam (does that make it "commercial" and fall under the FTC's claim as spam?) to steal donations to the campaign), religious unsolicited messages, and just plain garbage unsolicited messages: spam promoting beliefs and ideas instead of products and, uh, "services."
Years ago they promoted the address uce@ftc.gov for sending spam (that I heard they stored in a refrigerator-sized database, sorted by content type - mortgage, pr)n, 419, and a bunch of other totally useless categories), perhaps we should have flooded ube@ftc.gov as well or instead (and maybe use a bounce address of uce@ftc.gov).
The same emerging problem with unsolicited faxes was nipped in the bud over ten years ago with the whatever-it-was Telecommunications Act, and it's surprising that junk faxes still exist - way too few people know about that law. A similar law could send many spammers running like cockroaches in the light as millions go for their $500 per spam - unfortunately, spammers have a reputation for being small-time "checkenboners" and are thus judgement proof. But one or two states (ISTR Washington Sate) have had similar laws, and (apparently a very few) people have actually got judgements and/or collected from spammers.
The kind of folks that read/. want complete freedom on the internet. They also want no more spam.
The sad truth is that you can't have both.
Spam is NOT freedom, it is ABUSE of email. I (and I presume the majority of slashdotters, certainly the majority of email users) don't send email to people who don't want it (whether COMMERCIAL or not - The "C" word is a red herring). Stopping those who do would NOT involve (depending on how it's done) increased regulation of the Internet.
You either have an international body that regulates the internet (which personaly I don't want, and I assume most/.ers agree), or you have spam.
The way things are going, we're bound to have more and more of BOTH.
I remember when every electronic device you bought came with its schematic in the back of the owner's manual. Manufacturers didn't give up any rights by doing this back then. What's changed?
Not only did Heathkits have assembly instructions "for dummies" (if you can correctly use a screwdriver, you're most of the way toward building a kit) and schematics, but also a "Circuit Description" section, and as I think back, that section had great value in my learning and understanding of electronics.
Towards the end of Heathkit that changed, not so much because of their philosophy, but because of technology. I recall mid-70's assembling a small desktop 4-function calculator, where the description told about the power supply, gas-discharge display scanning and keyboard scanning matrices, but nothing about the internal computations, which of course were all internal to one chip which had power, ground, and all the display/keyboard lines.
As far as your question, I believe schematics were mostly for the convenience of repair technicians, and as products became cheaper, less fixable and more throwaway, there was no more need for the schematic to be included.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's still well before the next Shuttle lift-off.
which was a Good Thing for people who owned fax machines about a decade ago. Junk faxes were about to make faxes useless just as fax machines were becoming affordable and many small businesses were getting them, but they virtually disappeared from the face of the Earth when this became law. The only reason junk faxes still exist at all is not enough people are aware of the law.
This may not work as well for malware, as many of the creators are not only NOT in California, they're not even in the USA.
Forgot to mention, from that second link, on Jan 8 the comet will be right next to The Pleades or the "Seven Sisters", a small constellation of seven fairly bright (and many more not-quite-as-bright, as seen in binocs) stars. It should be very easy to find then, and not hard between now and then. If nothing else, scan your binocs around the area and look for the little ball of cotton...
"be able to be seen by the naked eye"
"be visible to the naked eye"
which is more concise? which is prettier? which is clearer?
And is either one true? If you can locate and see the Andromeda galaxy with your undressed, er, unaided eye (I just barely can, and I'm in pretty dark skies 60 miles away from a major city), you might be able to see Comet Machholz unaided, but as of last night (dark skies before the moon rose) I can't, not without binoculars. Maybe it will be a little brighter over the next week or so.
I've been observing this comet since the start of December, thanks to a few pointers and charts on the newsgroup sci.astro.amateur. Even in the cities you should be able to see this comet, where skies are as bad as a full moon as we had a few days ago and I still saw it. 7.5x50 or even 10x50 binocs are perfect, but even smaller binocs should show the comet easily. Earlier this year I got 11x80 astronomical binoculars, which are just wondeful for this sort of thing.f inder/CometC2004Q2Tau1_10_05.gif f inder/
Here's a chart good through tonight (1/1/2005) and tomorrow:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/2004_Q2.gif
Here's one good through the 10th,
http://members.csolutions.net/fisherka/astronote/
that URL is one of the botom three current pics here:
http://members.csolutions.net/fisherka/astronote/
More info and photographs on the newsgroup as well as all over the web, as always.
...1 more day to invent cold fusion.
Or to invent economically viable hot fusion.
... and my comment was too simple and flippant (perhaps that's often a danger when discussing complicated and/or counterintuitive ideas such as this), but meant to convey that Einstein's findings point out that there's a closer relationship between space and time than many people realize, and than anyone thought of before Einstein.
I thought I'd post an update.
Ooooh Looky, new email....
:-(
Damn, it's spam!
It's space-time, not space.
Space-time is redundant.
The BETA groups now replaces the old way Google Groups works (worked?), and as most Usenet readers know, there's someone unhappy enough about it to spam their unhappiness to every group.
But someone posted a solution. Just use Google Groups from other English-speaking countries, such as:
http://groups.google.com.au/
I heard about the quake on the news, but it felt different when I read the following on one of the mailing lists I'm on. Maybe someone has a good God that can loan Undine an Iridium phone or something similar for long enough to call home.
ha ha.
I could see some doomsayer tech writer with a headling "Apple On The Verge of Filing For Bankruptcy"
I could see some doomsayer tech writer with a headling "Apple On THe Verge of Filing For Bankruptcy"
a text file and Edlin on an old MSDOS system. It seems crude by today's standards, but it's a vast improvement over those 800,000,000 3x5 cards he used before. Just think of the number of trees he saves...
Write a traveling salesmen problem but instead of avoiding the same airport twice the variables would have to be dependant on making sure Santa does not stop at the same house twice.
/. article about it. Gotta go, G'nite, all...
While it's not too hard to get "good" solutions to airports, it's much harder to get an optimum airport solution. There are many times more houses (even limiting it to those where at least one good child lives) than airports, and the computational time of this problem increases with the square (or perhaps it's the factorial (!)) of the number of points, so this is practically impossible, even with all the world's computers working on it for a year (and remember, some bad children become good, and some good children become bad, some children grow up, others are born, so the problem changes every year). Thus, there is no Santa Claus.
And compute it to make him as efficient as possible.
Of course I'm totaly wrong about there not being a Santa Claus, and I must go to bed within the hour, but first leave out some milk and cookies.
But think of this: The existence of Santa Claus shows he has solved this problem, so he must have access to something Really Cool such as Quantum Computing!!!
Maybe we can get Mr. Claus to write a
"We've recently had a code split at a project I'm leading."
So you WERE leading the whole project, now you're leading ONE of the forks? That's how I understand it.
TFQ is unclear on this, so I'm trusting the other posters who say that both forks are GPL. In this case it's technically fine to use the code while giving full credit, but from the tone of "is this ethically okay?" it seems the problem is more political than ethical. So...
Why not offer up any of the changes in YOUR fork in echange (even though they are technically available anyway through the GPL)? Are these not wanted? Why or why not?
What else is going on in this situation that you didn't tell us?
Thanks, I'd seen many that pointed out slashdot's 120 character limit on sigs, and I thought "Hmm, how can I take that idea, and nerd it up." This is what I came up with ;)
Your sig is a remarkably amusing send-up of a tantializingly short note by a famous mathematician concerning one of the major mathematics problems of all time, whereas my sig just makes a pun on the simple physics equation "f = ma" and a quote from an old SF movie.
Surely your karma will soon exceed mine by a long shot. I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy...{sorry, another old movie quote}
http://www.paralinks.net/paralinksarchives/hawking exo.html
g exo.html
/. does that to a line of text, but the URL thing doesn't add spaces [to the ACTUAL LINK - the text still shows a space in hawkingexo].
Actual, operational link:
http://www.paralinks.net/paralinksarchives/hawkin
Please use the URL feature that will auto-link a URL, as shown under the Submit button on the Post Comment page. Those of us who perfer to click rather than copy-paste and then fix the link.
In your post it has a space that's not in the actual link, dunno why
Bulk mailing the invitation is quesitonable.
Bulk mailing of an unsolicited message is unquestionably spam.
In this example, she can take an ad out in a newspaper/magazine/meduium other local realtors would read, offering to add them to her mailing list. Yes, this involves paying money for advertising, but advertising the list through unsolicited bulk email, while 'free' (no incremental cost above email access), is spam.
... I sure wish the FTC would use that definition, otherwise we're bound to start getting tons of political unsolicited messages (see my journal about the Kerry spam, though of course that was just a scam (does that make it "commercial" and fall under the FTC's claim as spam?) to steal donations to the campaign), religious unsolicited messages, and just plain garbage unsolicited messages: spam promoting beliefs and ideas instead of products and, uh, "services."
Years ago they promoted the address uce@ftc.gov for sending spam (that I heard they stored in a refrigerator-sized database, sorted by content type - mortgage, pr)n, 419, and a bunch of other totally useless categories), perhaps we should have flooded ube@ftc.gov as well or instead (and maybe use a bounce address of uce@ftc.gov).
The same emerging problem with unsolicited faxes was nipped in the bud over ten years ago with the whatever-it-was Telecommunications Act, and it's surprising that junk faxes still exist - way too few people know about that law. A similar law could send many spammers running like cockroaches in the light as millions go for their $500 per spam - unfortunately, spammers have a reputation for being small-time "checkenboners" and are thus judgement proof. But one or two states (ISTR Washington Sate) have had similar laws, and (apparently a very few) people have actually got judgements and/or collected from spammers.
The kind of folks that read /. want complete freedom on the internet. They also want no more spam.
/.ers agree), or you have spam.
The sad truth is that you can't have both.
Spam is NOT freedom, it is ABUSE of email. I (and I presume the majority of slashdotters, certainly the majority of email users) don't send email to people who don't want it (whether COMMERCIAL or not - The "C" word is a red herring). Stopping those who do would NOT involve (depending on how it's done) increased regulation of the Internet.
You either have an international body that regulates the internet (which personaly I don't want, and I assume most
The way things are going, we're bound to have more and more of BOTH.
I remember when every electronic device you bought came with its schematic in the back of the owner's manual. Manufacturers didn't give up any rights by doing this back then. What's changed?
Not only did Heathkits have assembly instructions "for dummies" (if you can correctly use a screwdriver, you're most of the way toward building a kit) and schematics, but also a "Circuit Description" section, and as I think back, that section had great value in my learning and understanding of electronics.
Towards the end of Heathkit that changed, not so much because of their philosophy, but because of technology. I recall mid-70's assembling a small desktop 4-function calculator, where the description told about the power supply, gas-discharge display scanning and keyboard scanning matrices, but nothing about the internal computations, which of course were all internal to one chip which had power, ground, and all the display/keyboard lines.
As far as your question, I believe schematics were mostly for the convenience of repair technicians, and as products became cheaper, less fixable and more throwaway, there was no more need for the schematic to be included.
OBSF: "Starquake" by Robert L. Forward, about a quake on a neurton star (not a quasar, sorry, but it's the closest I can think of).
Be sure to read "Dragon's Egg" first, "Starquake" is the sequel.