Can't see what justification there was for moding that post down. I can only imagine it's some one who likes to proclaim that only stupid users ever get infected by viruses
Many people say "Ha! I'd never be so stupid to click on an attachment, therefore it's impossible for a virus to infect my machine." However, the reality is no one is completely safe from viruses. All it takes is a worm that also infects EXEs. There's always loads of users who are going to open the attachment and then all the EXEs in their P2P shared folder become infected too. If you download EXEs via P2P then you too can get the virus. It's already been proven that a worm spreads faster than the Anti-virus manufactures can write and distribute patches for new worms, so there really is no 100% foolproof strategy. We are only saved from a real disaster occuring by the goodwill of worm/virus authors not to write any malicious worms (i.e. that destroy data files on your PC)
Yes, the space station has already provided invaluable scientific research, such as the effects of weightlessness on bees. Now, we will be able to research the effects of low gravity on bees
"The moon, scientists have said, is a source of potentially unlimited energy in the form of the helium 3 isotope -- a near perfect fuel source: potent, nonpolluting and causing virtually no radioactive byproduct in a fusion reactor."
Yes, except for the minor detail, we haven't actually got fusion to work yet, and maybe with all the funds being diverted to this Moonbase turkey, they won't have much money to spend on that project. Also, seems like there isn't any problem with the supply of fuel for fusion, considering that you can use sea water.
I suppose sea water won't look as good on Bush's resume in comparision to a big hightech moon base
I once worked in a place where a guy put up pictures of his wife naked as wallpaper on his PC (no, really , I'm not making this up) wonder how they would have handled that at HP
What's my point? your total exposure to radiation is acculmative = natural sources + man made sources Fissile material has extreemly long half life and once it is released in the environment it just doesn't go away. There is an ever increasing amount of it from Chernobil, atmosphere testing, power plant leaks, nuclear satellites crashing etc, etc. The idea is to reduce it as much as possible, not to put your, so-called 100 REM limit to the test. How do you know for sure that this limit is even accurate anyway? I don't think anyone can actually prove that you won't get cancer if you are exposed to less than this limit.
Is there a systematic check for plutonium in cancer cases? I don't know. Also, the plutonium doesn't have to be inside you, you just need to be exposed to the gamma radiation released from it to give you cancer. I understood that plutonium and other fissile materials give off neutrons as well, which makes other chemical elements turn into radioactive isotopes.
On your second point you are right, there are radioactive meteriods. However, just because meteriods that release radioactive material into the atmosphere are naturally occuring doesn't mean they are harmless. Natural sources of radiation can give you cancer just as easy as man-made ones
"Considering the number of radioactive meteors that burn up, they were probably right." Well, considering that plutonium is a man made substance I don't think so. Meteriods are made of "light" elements, such as iron.
"Thus the incident where they burned up a bunch of plutonium over Canada. Still, no one died there either." How do you know? Of all the people that have contracted cancer how do you know which one's were cause by radiation from plutonium, or by-products?
..or maybe NASA could send one of those idiots that hang around traffic lights offering to clean your windshield wippers. "Hey, dusy solar panels, mister. Let me just give them a quick wipe"
Sorry, but your wrong, according to an earlier artical (http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/stat us2.html):
"Meanwhile, two changes have been made. Spirit will unfurl its parachute two seconds sooner than originally planned to compensate for current Martian weather conditions.
"A dust storm seen on the other side of the planet has caused global heating and thinning of the atmosphere at high altitudes," said Mark Adler, the rover mission manager for cruise and entry, descent and landing (EDL)."
The question is: Did Beagle also make this adjustment?
I notice that you omit to mention the SNAP satellite that *didn't* have a safe RTG - it burned up, releasing it's plutonium into the atmosphere. Nor the RTGs that have landed in the ocean too deep to recover.
Also, the logic is a bit flawed: so far the few RTGs that crash landed survived (mainly because most of them landed in the sea), but this doesn't mean the next one will. The forces of a launch vehicle explosion are enormous, and there is never any guarantee
In this story http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/040113reconstr uction.html It says that the atmosphere was much thinner than expected, because of a dust storm. NASA changed the chute to deploy earlier because of this, but even with this adjustment the chute opened a mile lower than expected. As far as I know Beagle's chute deployment was never adjusted for the thinner atmosphere, so maybe that explains why they haven't heard from it
"Funny, all the old space probes had nuclear powerplants and that all worked out just fine."
Did they really? One USSR satallite crashed dispersing plutonium over Canada. A US satellite burnt up in the atmosphere realising plutonium into the atmosphere and a Russian space probe bound for Mars crashed into the sea, it's payload of plutonium was never recovered... and there is many more recorded accidents.
"If people can believe we have designed black boxes that survive being slammed into the Pennsylvania crust at 400 mph" But do 100% of all black boxes survive? Just becuase one survived, doesnt mean the next one will.
Super glue is used to glue the eyelash closed after eye surgery. It's packaged as "surgery" glue, but it's the exact same thing as common household super glue.
It strikes me as odd that the only info is a link to a court file. I see no statement from Michael Robertson, nor any artical in any newspaper to confirm this.
Also, wouldnt Michael Robertson have a chance too appeal?
Yes, maybe there are RTF readers available for Linux, but RTF is still a Microsoft propriety format. I know there is a specification available, but it really only half-documents the specifications... just enough to fool people into thinking that it's an open specification.
You actually have just proved the origional posters point: "64-bit is not faster than 32-bit in and of itself", and you say that your app is faster because of the extra registers. Extra registers are not related to 64-bitness... some one could just as easily bring out a 32-bit processor with extra registers and it would equally run faster;)
"The worst Windows exploit of the year: a hole in the RPC services (which you can't turn off) that allowed a worm to gain control of millions of Windows boxes, disrupting the entire internet."
Also probably the entire US power grid: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12875
I used to work for Siemens Nixdorf. Their ATMs had a 286 inside and ran on msdos at that time. I'd imagine the logical upgrade cycle would be Windows 2000/XP, so I wouldn't be suprised if most of the ATMs are the same. Though publicity like this may change the trend.
"OOo was designed to compare and compete with MS Office and is hence bloated by design and default" I tried out the wordprocessor from OOo reciently and found that it is trying to copy MSWord 97 feature for feature. I wouldn't use "bloated" to describe either of these products. However, just blindly copying what MS does is not a good idea in my opinion. For instance, I think auto-spell check, auto-format, auto complete, etc. should be switched of by default, or at the minimum be easy to switch off (e.g. one easy to find setting "crap off"). Other features that MSWord does nicely are missing, for instance MSWord gives you a default filename based on the first few words in the document when you save a new file.
Slashdot Mirror
Weren't we promised a secure version of Windows from the so-called Trustworthy Computing inititive that was started 2 years ago?
Where is it?
Can't see what justification there was for moding that post down.
I can only imagine it's some one who likes to proclaim that only stupid users ever get infected by viruses
Many people say "Ha! I'd never be so stupid to click on an attachment, therefore it's impossible for a virus to infect my machine."
However, the reality is no one is completely safe from viruses.
All it takes is a worm that also infects EXEs.
There's always loads of users who are going to open the attachment and then all the EXEs in their P2P shared folder become infected too.
If you download EXEs via P2P then you too can get the virus.
It's already been proven that a worm spreads faster than the Anti-virus manufactures can write and distribute patches for new worms, so there really is no 100% foolproof strategy.
We are only saved from a real disaster occuring by the goodwill of worm/virus authors not to write any malicious worms (i.e. that destroy data files on your PC)
Yes, the space station has already provided invaluable scientific research, such as the effects of weightlessness on bees.
Now, we will be able to research the effects of low gravity on bees
"The moon, scientists have said, is a source of potentially unlimited energy in the form of the helium 3 isotope -- a near perfect fuel source: potent, nonpolluting and causing virtually no radioactive byproduct in a fusion reactor."
Yes, except for the minor detail, we haven't actually got fusion to work yet, and maybe with all the funds being diverted to this Moonbase turkey, they won't have much money to spend on that project.
Also, seems like there isn't any problem with the supply of fuel for fusion, considering that you can use sea water.
I suppose sea water won't look as good on Bush's resume in comparision to a big hightech moon base
Antrartica holds no strategic importance ...unless you were planning on attacking Australia, or Argintina ;)
Well, if you want to believe that plutonium is harmless and coal is radioactive... go ahead, I obviuoysly can't win this arguement on logic.
I once worked in a place where a guy put up pictures of his wife naked as wallpaper on his PC (no, really , I'm not making this up)
wonder how they would have handled that at HP
What's my point?
your total exposure to radiation is acculmative = natural sources + man made sources
Fissile material has extreemly long half life and once it is released in the environment it just doesn't go away. There is an ever increasing amount of it from Chernobil, atmosphere testing, power plant leaks, nuclear satellites crashing etc, etc.
The idea is to reduce it as much as possible, not to put your, so-called 100 REM limit to the test.
How do you know for sure that this limit is even accurate anyway? I don't think anyone can actually prove that you won't get cancer if you are exposed to less than this limit.
Is there a systematic check for plutonium in cancer cases? I don't know.
Also, the plutonium doesn't have to be inside you, you just need to be exposed to the gamma radiation released from it to give you cancer.
I understood that plutonium and other fissile materials give off neutrons as well, which makes other chemical elements turn into radioactive isotopes.
On your second point you are right, there are radioactive meteriods.
However, just because meteriods that release radioactive material into the atmosphere are naturally occuring doesn't mean they are harmless. Natural sources of radiation can give you cancer just as easy as man-made ones
"Considering the number of radioactive meteors that burn up, they were probably right."
Well, considering that plutonium is a man made substance I don't think so. Meteriods are made of "light" elements, such as iron.
"Thus the incident where they burned up a bunch of plutonium over Canada. Still, no one died there either."
How do you know? Of all the people that have contracted cancer how do you know which one's were cause by radiation from plutonium, or by-products?
..or maybe NASA could send one of those idiots that hang around traffic lights offering to clean your windshield wippers.
"Hey, dusy solar panels, mister. Let me just give them a quick wipe"
Sorry, but your wrong, according to an earlier articalt us2.html) :
(http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/sta
"Meanwhile, two changes have been made. Spirit will unfurl its parachute two seconds sooner than originally planned to compensate for current Martian weather conditions.
"A dust storm seen on the other side of the planet has caused global heating and thinning of the atmosphere at high altitudes," said Mark Adler, the rover mission manager for cruise and entry, descent and landing (EDL)."
The question is: Did Beagle also make this adjustment?
I notice that you omit to mention the SNAP satellite that *didn't* have a safe RTG - it burned up, releasing it's plutonium into the atmosphere. Nor the RTGs that have landed in the ocean too deep to recover. Also, the logic is a bit flawed: so far the few RTGs that crash landed survived (mainly because most of them landed in the sea), but this doesn't mean the next one will. The forces of a launch vehicle explosion are enormous, and there is never any guarantee
In this story http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/040113reconstr uction.html
It says that the atmosphere was much thinner than expected, because of a dust storm. NASA changed the chute to deploy earlier because of this, but even with this adjustment the chute opened a mile lower than expected. As far as I know Beagle's chute deployment was never adjusted for the thinner atmosphere, so maybe that explains why they haven't heard from it
"Funny, all the old space probes had nuclear powerplants and that all worked out just fine."
Did they really? One USSR satallite crashed dispersing plutonium over Canada. A US satellite burnt up in the atmosphere realising plutonium into the atmosphere and a Russian space probe bound for Mars crashed into the sea, it's payload of plutonium was never recovered... and there is many more recorded accidents.
"If people can believe we have designed black boxes that survive being slammed into the Pennsylvania crust at 400 mph"
But do 100% of all black boxes survive? Just becuase one survived, doesnt mean the next one will.
Super glue is used to glue the eyelash closed after eye surgery. It's packaged as "surgery" glue, but it's the exact same thing as common household super glue.
It strikes me as odd that the only info is a link to a court file. I see no statement from Michael Robertson, nor any artical in any newspaper to confirm this. Also, wouldnt Michael Robertson have a chance too appeal?
Yes, maybe there are RTF readers available for Linux, but RTF is still a Microsoft propriety format. I know there is a specification available, but it really only half-documents the specifications... just enough to fool people into thinking that it's an open specification.
You actually have just proved the origional posters point: "64-bit is not faster than 32-bit in and of itself", and you say that your app is faster because of the extra registers. Extra registers are not related to 64-bitness... some one could just as easily bring out a 32-bit processor with extra registers and it would equally run faster ;)
"The worst Windows exploit of the year: a hole in the RPC services (which you can't turn off) that allowed a worm to gain control of millions of Windows boxes, disrupting the entire internet."
Also probably the entire US power grid:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12875
UTC == GMT - daylight savings time.
I used to work for Siemens Nixdorf. Their ATMs had a 286 inside and ran on msdos at that time. I'd imagine the logical upgrade cycle would be Windows 2000/XP, so I wouldn't be suprised if most of the ATMs are the same. Though publicity like this may change the trend.
It does for me. Especially when I create a document just to make notes. Anyways you don't have to use the suggested default if you don't want to
"OOo was designed to compare and compete with MS Office and is hence bloated by design and default"
I tried out the wordprocessor from OOo reciently and found that it is trying to copy MSWord 97 feature for feature. I wouldn't use "bloated" to describe either of these products. However, just blindly copying what MS does is not a good idea in my opinion. For instance, I think auto-spell check, auto-format, auto complete, etc. should be switched of by default, or at the minimum be easy
to switch off (e.g. one easy to find setting "crap off"). Other features that MSWord does nicely are missing, for instance MSWord gives you a default filename based on the first few words in the document when you save a new file.