how many of these hack attacks are exploiting known issues?
Pretty much all of them. The current political situation doesn't cause hordes of über-crackers to spring up, it's mostly protesters, nationalists and script kiddies fooling around with known exploits. The article doesn't mention a single big, well-known web site -- which tend to have better security -- as a target, most of the attacked sites are simply small fragbait.
Also, this article makes an interesting claim that LCDs haven't done as well as they might've because "the human eye needs to see 25 frames per second to be tricked into thinking that motion is continuous, and LCD monitors have often failed to meet this specification". Um, my laptop LCD has a fixed 60Hz refresh rate.
You're right, this passage from the article is absolute nonsense, but not for the reason you think. The reason why LCDs have a problem with refres rates is that pixels glow longer after getting an impulse and it takes them longer to fade to black again. This causes images to blend into each other more. As a consequence, the refresh rate at which pictures are delivered to an LCD screen may actually be lower than with a CRT, your eye will still see the motion, without any flicker. However, this is the exact problem gamers have. The frames smear into each other, causing motion blur and making it difficult to accurately see fast animations. To some elite fraggers, it even makes a difference if they get 70fps or 100fps, and most LCDs can't deliver frames at that speed, no matter how high you set the refresh rate in your video settings.
on the other hand the changes between XP and 2k (which it evolved from) are tiny
XP is not the successor of 2000 and it didn't evolve from it. It replaces Me, as your parent correctly noted, and integrates some of the technology of the NT line, to which 2000 belongs. In spite of that, there still are quite some noteable technological differences between 2000 and XP. They just look very similar to the ordinary end user, as their user interfaces are very, very silimar (especially if you turn of XP's Luna GUI, which most/.ers seems to do).
Of course you can talk about differences between the two, but not about changes, as 2000 wasn't changed into XP.
1) if DRM only solves the casual copying problem, the owners of the copyrights aren't happy.
2) if the DRM system is 'bulletproof', the users of the copyright content aren't happy.
1) The users are even unhappy about DRM that just tries to solve the casual copying problem. Think CDs not playing in car CD-players etc.
2) I haven't seen a bulletproof DRM system yet, not even a theoretical one.
I kid you not, knowing about gutenberg.net and textz.com and being a (somewhat) productive member of everything2, and considering the nice weather in the big room, I just clicked on the 'go.outside' link.
But I'm still here. Is it broken or just slashdotted?
The 'interface of something like the iPhone' exists in the wild for years and is used without any problems at all. For example, when I 'stand in the street' and want to call my wife, I can leave my tiny phone where it is and just plug a tiny headset into my ear, activate it with a press on the single button it has and say 'ring wife' very quietly. Also when speaking to my wife, I don't have to shout. I certainly don't have to hold anything to my ear and I absolutely don't look like a prat.
What the iPhone idea really is about is that you have your PDA with net access and MP3 player in the same device (so far devices like this already exist), AND have all of that in a tiny device that doesn't encumber you and even looks like a fashionable accessory. I need to put my phone and PDA into pockets and take care that they don't get lost or stolen. Having them around my wrist and thus always 'at hand' would be a great improvement.
Not really. Gollum is not an entirely virtual/artificial actor, it is only a virtual/artificial puppet, played by a real, human actor (which is remarkable, because often three actors 'play' the body, the face and the voice respectively). The visuals are nothing but costume design and make-up. There already are Oskar categories for that, and there also are categories for the actors.
Maybe there is a yet non-existant category that would be justified by new animation techniques, but its certainly not 'best Character', since in this field there's no substancial difference to traditionally shot pictures, in which you could also give per-character awards. For example, you might find that Renée Zellweger's acting wasn't the best overall last year and that she doesn't deserve an award as best actress. You might furthermore find that Colleen Atwoods costume design wasn't the best of all and Jordan Samuel's makeup wasn't the best of all, but that the combination of that all was just perfect and therefore the character of Roxie Hart deserves an Oskar as 'best character'.
That was your suggestion, right? It just hasn't anything to do with digital production, nothing at all.
As I said, you got the basic idea right, but saying that 'it will wobble' puts it the wrong way around, as the earth presently 'wobbles' more due to the moon's gravity than it will in the future. Yes, in theory the planets also move the sun around a little and even cause tides on the sun, but I don't think that effect is measureable.
Question - Does anyone know if, when that happens [the Moon rises to a high enough orbit to be "geosynchronous" and the same faces are towards each other always] will the two bodies orbit around a neutral point, which may or may not be above the surface of the earth, or will the Moon still completely orbit the Earth?
The system won't change from now until then, only some variables within it, e.g. the distance between the earth and the moon, the earth's rotational speed etc. You figured out correctly that two objects orbiting around each other at a constant distance actually orbit around a fixed point that lies on the line between their centres of gravity. The only thing missing from the puzzle (to answer your question) is this: It's the same for two objects orbiting around each other at a variable distance, just that the centre point is moving along the connecting axis. In fact, because the moon is closer to the earth than it will be in the future, it exerts a stronger force on it than it would in your 'geosynchronous' scenario, thus the earth is actually pulled out of its orbit around the sun more in the present.
Summary:
will the Moon still completely orbit the Earth?
If that is supposed to mean if the moon orbits the centre of gravity of the earth: It doesn't do that now, but the approximation is getting better over time.
Wouldn't it make sense to take into account whether the planet could feasibly sustain life too? I mean could a 700km round body in space support an atmosphere?
Bad idea, then we wouldn't only have to come up with a watertight definition of what's a planet and what isn't, but do the same for the term 'life'. By the way, of the dozens of definitions I already saw for 'life' (you get to see that many when you read about artificial/virtual life/intelligence), not a single one excluded entities that need an atmosphere.
What about each program having a property list of compatible versions of the required DLLs
If you're gonna be picky about which DLLs you want to use, you could just include your own and don't care what Windows offers. Using shared libraries and determining in advance which libraries you want to use are two concepts that don't work together. Furthermore, the compatibility issues we have to deal with now arise because each new version of Windows has to be backwards-compatible with more earlier versions and you have more DLL conflicts. The problems aren't with newly created programs, but with the old, existing ones. You'd have to make your 'compatibility lists' for all of them, which is impossible to do.
... at least each and every program will have it's "own" DLL...
Ah, yes, what a wonderful idea; let each and every program have its own DLLs, at the mere cost of rendering the whole DLL system totally useless.
You see, if you just wanted to split your executable code over several files for one reason or another, you could include DLLs with your program (in its own directory) ever since. Those wouldn't ever be changed by Windows, but this has nothing to do with the registry. The whole idea behind registered DLLs that reside in a centralised place is that you have shared libraries, that you don't have to store code used by several programs in multiple places, but only once, where you can do easy updates.
However, now that there are so many versions of Windows out there, Microsoft is experiencing compatibility issues with DLLs and they're doing something about it. I'm not familiar with the details of their solution and don't want to say it's a bad one at all. But your ideas are a little too extreme; saving one copy of a DLL per program is just absurd.
In fact, it will be cheaper to fly the surgeon to a tiny island in the east china sea than to fly in the robotics.
This might be true, but misses the point, which is not about moving robots around, not at all (in the civilian field, at least). The 'robo-doc' would be permanently installed in a nearby hostpital anyway. And you don't need a huge crew of 'robotic technicians' (The technicians are robotic? So who's gonna do their maintenance?;-), you just need someone who is able to take care of delicate medical high-tech equipment. Hospitals have that kind of personnel anyway.
The actual point is that there are very peculiar operations that only a few surgeons in the world are able and willing to perform; e.g. the seperation of twins conjoined at their heads. Now compare flying them around from continent to continent to having them stay at home, where they could still be able to do the same job.
Of course it would be nice for our Chinese friend if someone set up a whole operating room in his home, but this is still science fiction. Flying him over to a nearby hospital on the mainland (or another island, wherever the nearest one is) and promptly starting the operation would still be an huge improvement over having him to transport to Beijing or having to wait days for a surgeon.
Now that Google buyed Pyra, it's obvious which new criteria will be added to PageRank. Dr. Pepper are just trying to get a head start in exploiting them;-)
I think with "reverting back to the old look and feel", the parent poster didn't think of switching off usable features like hiding all those seldomly used items from the start menu until you request to see them all. I think he rather referred to switching off the new kindergarten-style window borders, config panel lazout etc., which take up more pixels on the screen (so less useful information is displayed) and look different for no good reason.
Sure, maybe you can tweak the new l&f so you can be just as productive with it. However, the point wasn't that it's inherently bad, it was that _changing_ it around all the time is a very bad idea, and as the old one is just as good for most people, most people are better off continuing to use the old.
"Pointless 'innovation' considered harmful." I read that somewhere today, probably Wired News. Definitely applies here.
not paraphrasing; the original 'göring quote' is about culture. but now that you said it: the syntax _is_ remarkably similar to the canonical english version of the 'göring quote' you find at google. the canonical german version, however, doesn't speak of reaching for the revolver, but of switching the safety lock of.
so why do i put 'göring quote' in quote marks? because göring never actually said that, it's one of these phrases that originated somewhere else and became famous because they fit and he _could have_ said that. like the 'marie-antoinette quote', "let them eat cake", that she never really said.
And my first words are these: when I hear someone speak of `social responsibility', that's when I reach for my revolver.// In point of fact, I don't actually own a revolver...
That's right. He owns a pistol and gave another one to his wife. Those are not revolvers. As much as I admire works like the cathedral and bazar essay, since I've seen stuff like "Sex, software, politics, and firearms. Life's simple pleasures..." and Eric's Gun Nut Page, this guy is among the last people on earth I'd ask to talk about social responsibility in anything.
Not all 'military projects' are bad. When I was in the army, I secured my country's borders (not primarily hunting illegal immigrants, but the facilitators that take all their money) and helped victims of natural catastrophes. Of course, there also are those 'military projects' that are about killing lots of humans. For good reasons, they are planned and conducted rather secretly and the people involved are making rather sure no one gets access to their computers. So, why do you think they would respect your little license terms?
And who decides which 'actions' are 'non-civil' and in which ways a software program could be 'related' to them? That whole idea is callow humbug.
I'd rather try making the world a little better and thus a less likely place to start wars by creating stuff like free software, not almost-free software.
There is no problem that would be substantially easier to solve in, say, Perl than in, say, Java. Java has its restrictions, but no severe flaws that complicate things that would be trivial in Perl. There are Java packages that give you Perl-like regular expressions, self-modifying code, a scripting language, 'practical extracting and reporting' and all the other goodies that come with Perl.
So, when you have a problem that is perfectly suited for Perl and can be solved by a Perl programmer in a few hours, it can also be solved by a Java programmer in hours. But only by a Java programmer who is already familiar with the aforementioned packages and doesn't have to search, install, evaluate, choose and learn them first. Most Java programmers, however, are more familiar with Java-typical problems and familiar with Swing, J2EE packages and the like. Those could easily waste two weeks writing clumsy code for something they're not experienced with.
... that couldn't be solved within 2 or 3 times that length of time...
These numbers are ridiculous. A factor of two or three is virtually nothing in software development. It is common that some programmers are ten times faster solving the same task as other programmers who use the same language and went through the same education. If you wanted to prove that a particular language is better suited for a particular task, you'd have to conduct a huge case study in order to get somewhat useful averages in the end. Just comparing two programmers and then concluding "one was faster, so his programming language is better" is just nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you can talk about differences between the two, but not about changes, as 2000 wasn't changed into XP.
2) I haven't seen a bulletproof DRM system yet, not even a theoretical one.
But I'm still here. Is it broken or just slashdotted?
The 'interface of something like the iPhone' exists in the wild for years and is used without any problems at all. For example, when I 'stand in the street' and want to call my wife, I can leave my tiny phone where it is and just plug a tiny headset into my ear, activate it with a press on the single button it has and say 'ring wife' very quietly. Also when speaking to my wife, I don't have to shout. I certainly don't have to hold anything to my ear and I absolutely don't look like a prat.
What the iPhone idea really is about is that you have your PDA with net access and MP3 player in the same device (so far devices like this already exist), AND have all of that in a tiny device that doesn't encumber you and even looks like a fashionable accessory. I need to put my phone and PDA into pockets and take care that they don't get lost or stolen. Having them around my wrist and thus always 'at hand' would be a great improvement.
Youre right, if you find enough soul's that believe in your apostrophe placement, itll become correc't.
Not really. Gollum is not an entirely virtual/artificial actor, it is only a virtual/artificial puppet, played by a real, human actor (which is remarkable, because often three actors 'play' the body, the face and the voice respectively). The visuals are nothing but costume design and make-up. There already are Oskar categories for that, and there also are categories for the actors.
Maybe there is a yet non-existant category that would be justified by new animation techniques, but its certainly not 'best Character', since in this field there's no substancial difference to traditionally shot pictures, in which you could also give per-character awards. For example, you might find that Renée Zellweger's acting wasn't the best overall last year and that she doesn't deserve an award as best actress. You might furthermore find that Colleen Atwoods costume design wasn't the best of all and Jordan Samuel's makeup wasn't the best of all, but that the combination of that all was just perfect and therefore the character of Roxie Hart deserves an Oskar as 'best character'.
That was your suggestion, right? It just hasn't anything to do with digital production, nothing at all.
As I said, you got the basic idea right, but saying that 'it will wobble' puts it the wrong way around, as the earth presently 'wobbles' more due to the moon's gravity than it will in the future. Yes, in theory the planets also move the sun around a little and even cause tides on the sun, but I don't think that effect is measureable.
Summary: If that is supposed to mean if the moon orbits the centre of gravity of the earth: It doesn't do that now, but the approximation is getting better over time.
I agree, this is a huge waste of resources. I also don't understand why people go to live concerts when they can download the bootleg over Gnutella.
You see, if you just wanted to split your executable code over several files for one reason or another, you could include DLLs with your program (in its own directory) ever since. Those wouldn't ever be changed by Windows, but this has nothing to do with the registry. The whole idea behind registered DLLs that reside in a centralised place is that you have shared libraries, that you don't have to store code used by several programs in multiple places, but only once, where you can do easy updates.
However, now that there are so many versions of Windows out there, Microsoft is experiencing compatibility issues with DLLs and they're doing something about it. I'm not familiar with the details of their solution and don't want to say it's a bad one at all. But your ideas are a little too extreme; saving one copy of a DLL per program is just absurd.
The actual point is that there are very peculiar operations that only a few surgeons in the world are able and willing to perform; e.g. the seperation of twins conjoined at their heads. Now compare flying them around from continent to continent to having them stay at home, where they could still be able to do the same job.
Of course it would be nice for our Chinese friend if someone set up a whole operating room in his home, but this is still science fiction. Flying him over to a nearby hospital on the mainland (or another island, wherever the nearest one is) and promptly starting the operation would still be an huge improvement over having him to transport to Beijing or having to wait days for a surgeon.
Now that Google buyed Pyra, it's obvious which new criteria will be added to PageRank. Dr. Pepper are just trying to get a head start in exploiting them ;-)
I think with "reverting back to the old look and feel", the parent poster didn't think of switching off usable features like hiding all those seldomly used items from the start menu until you request to see them all. I think he rather referred to switching off the new kindergarten-style window borders, config panel lazout etc., which take up more pixels on the screen (so less useful information is displayed) and look different for no good reason.
Sure, maybe you can tweak the new l&f so you can be just as productive with it. However, the point wasn't that it's inherently bad, it was that _changing_ it around all the time is a very bad idea, and as the old one is just as good for most people, most people are better off continuing to use the old.
"Pointless 'innovation' considered harmful." I read that somewhere today, probably Wired News. Definitely applies here.
not paraphrasing; the original 'göring quote' is about culture. but now that you said it: the syntax _is_ remarkably similar to the canonical english version of the 'göring quote' you find at google. the canonical german version, however, doesn't speak of reaching for the revolver, but of switching the safety lock of.
so why do i put 'göring quote' in quote marks? because göring never actually said that, it's one of these phrases that originated somewhere else and became famous because they fit and he _could have_ said that. like the 'marie-antoinette quote', "let them eat cake", that she never really said.
You and which army?
Not all 'military projects' are bad. When I was in the army, I secured my country's borders (not primarily hunting illegal immigrants, but the facilitators that take all their money) and helped victims of natural catastrophes. Of course, there also are those 'military projects' that are about killing lots of humans. For good reasons, they are planned and conducted rather secretly and the people involved are making rather sure no one gets access to their computers. So, why do you think they would respect your little license terms?
And who decides which 'actions' are 'non-civil' and in which ways a software program could be 'related' to them? That whole idea is callow humbug.
I'd rather try making the world a little better and thus a less likely place to start wars by creating stuff like free software, not almost-free software.
So, when you have a problem that is perfectly suited for Perl and can be solved by a Perl programmer in a few hours, it can also be solved by a Java programmer in hours. But only by a Java programmer who is already familiar with the aforementioned packages and doesn't have to search, install, evaluate, choose and learn them first. Most Java programmers, however, are more familiar with Java-typical problems and familiar with Swing, J2EE packages and the like. Those could easily waste two weeks writing clumsy code for something they're not experienced with.
These numbers are ridiculous. A factor of two or three is virtually nothing in software development. It is common that some programmers are ten times faster solving the same task as other programmers who use the same language and went through the same education. If you wanted to prove that a particular language is better suited for a particular task, you'd have to conduct a huge case study in order to get somewhat useful averages in the end. Just comparing two programmers and then concluding "one was faster, so his programming language is better" is just nonsense.