A directional, single-use EMP gun is fairly easy to build. Basic premise is to take a tube of explosive, wrap an electromagnet around it, then set off the explosive from one end. There are directions around... These are fairly low-power devices, but can take out most normal electronics at close range.
Of course, anyone who is actually worried about EMP devices being used against them can shield their equipment. It's not particularly hard, just expensive and inconvient. All you need is a Fariday Cage around the electronics you need shielded.
The fact that Microsoft is thinking about it is news, as well as why. Sure they have the right, but it seems the reason to do it is to threaten a country into doing what they want. (By leaving them outside of a technological loop, where everyone else is likely to have a product they don't.) This is interesting because: A company has the power to inconvience a country; Microsoft is acting like a bully; Microsoft obviously isn't seeing all the long-term implications of this.
If Microsoft succedes, they have proven a multi-national company can be above a particular country's law, and we may be on the way to an overtly corporate-run globe. If it is not a bluff and S. Korea calls it, OSS in all it various forms will get a boost, and we will get to see exactly how much power Microsoft has. If Microsoft backs down, they look like a scared bully and lose prestige. (Especally amoung governments.)
This is a high-stakes move from Microsoft. It will be interesing to watch. Most likely is some compromise position, which still shows a lot of power in Microsoft's hands.
A trademark can be used by anyone to refer to the owner of the trademark. (With or without approval, as long as you do not violate any other laws.)
An encyclopedia would likely be using it to refer to the owner, and not implying the trademark owner endorses them in any way. Therefore, there is no problem.
Trademark should cover it. The Onion is using the presidential seal to mark their own documents, not to refer to the president's. That's a trademark infraction.
Trademarks can be lost if not defended. The US government may well be legally obligated to pursuse this case...
Stirling Engine. Definately. That way, you don't have to carry extra 'fuel'.
I can see this working. A stirling engine, with the 'heating' chamber on the outside. Target it with a laser (not allowed this year, but will be next), and you'll have a very efficent climber.
You do need to track the machine with the laser (it might help to shoot straight up), and dissipating the heat would be a problem for a 'real' application (heat doesn't dissipate as easy in a vacum), but that wouldn't be a problem for the heights we are talking about here.
I bet we could build one for less than $50 grand...
The hacked GPL code must be avalible to anyone they sell the device to, and a copy of the GPL (stating what componets it applies to) needs to be in the documentation shipped with the product.
The custom code can probably stay closed source, depending on exactly how closely it is integrated with GPL code.
Note that nothing need be downloadable. If they ship the device with a documentation CD that includes the source code for the GPL'd tools and the licence terms, they are fine.
One comment I've seen regarding the Nano's scratching pointed out there was a reason why the Nano's are more likely to appear scratched, even when they aren't as scratched a previous versions: The new case design. In the previous iPods, the front resin rounded over and blended into the sides. In the Nano (and now the 5th gen iPod), the face has clear, 'sharp' (in comparison) corners.
The effect of this is to give the new iPods more 'depth' in their apprence, and a crisper, cleaner, face. Part of why this effect occurs though is that the new form-factor allows light from the sides as well as the direct light, and gives the resin finish more of a prisim effect. As a result, a minor scratch is more noticeable: it has more effect on the light you are seeing the iPod with.
Of course, none of that implies that Apple cut down on the amount of resin. Just that scratches are more noticable. Whether that is a design problem or not is open to interpetation.
Actually, if you want to give the UN teeth you are going to have to work a little harder than that.
The UN cannot do anything in any country unless that country allows it. Anything they do is a voluntary action. Now, they can agree to impose sanctions, but those are based on other contries voluntarially following the sanctions.
Personally, I'd like to see this changed. I can see how it would scare lots of people though. (And how come we'll never get countries to agree to it.)
Still, every time I see agruments about how the UN should do something, and why isn't it, I always want to shout: They Can't. It is against their charter. Therefore, they resort to diplomacy. Because it is all they are allowed to do.
That would probably depend on the type of trespass. I've got a copy of "Black's Law Dictionary", which has two whole pages of different types of trespass...
The world has generally come to the conclusion (based largely on the US's example), that the way to avoid having a tyrant run amok with a resource is to have it accountable to a representative or democratic system. The Internet is a globally used and relied upon resource, which is currently is under the control of one country. Other countries are saying that it should be under a more democratic system.
The general theory is that no one group or person can abuse a resource accountable to a democratic body because they would have to get the consent of those they were about to abuse. This has generally proven effective.
Would the US abuse their power? Maybe. Probably, under the right circumstances. I'd say they are better than most countries.
The UN is the only actual democratic body representing people on a global scale. It would make sense to have them in charge of a global resource. Are they perfect? No. But for this I believe they are at least as good as the US.
As for trusting to invent it... Irrelevent. No one relied on it then. Now they do, and they have all helped build it.
Water pressure increases by about 15 pounds per square inch (one atmosphere) for every 33 feet you go down. I'm not exactly sure how much that translates to in density: that depends on the compressibility of water, but it should be safe enough to say you can push about that much harder against the water before it cavitates. (And cavitation is a submariner's worst enemy: it steals speed, and makes noise.)
That's why subs surface when they can to cruise faster.
No they don't. Old-style diesel subs would surface to cruise faster, but that was because they could cruise faster on diesel power than on electric, and they had to have fresh air for the diesel engines. (And they needed to save the battery power for when they really needed it.)
Nuclear subs can actually cruise faster at depth: They have power, and the propellers can push harder against the denser water.
You forgot one step: When talking to either side you don't bring up the validity of either side's claim. This means when talking to the People's Republic of China (for instance) you don't list provinces (officially), so the povince of Taiwan isn't conspicous by being or not being on the list.
Google is in a bad position: They have a nuetral product, easily accessable, which shows political divisions. Taiwan shows up on the product, so it needs to be inside or outside a boundry. A diplomat's words can leave it's status undefined, a map cannot.
Most accurate would probably be to mark the area claimed by the Republic of China as 'Under dispute', but neither side would like that...
Re:Sacrfice useability? Nice idea , won't work.
on
Heap Protection Mechanism
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Actually, for OpenBSD, it will work. And has.
The reason is very simple: There will always be some applications where the security of the system is a paramount point. Where it does have to do with the application. OpenBSD caters directly to those people, and those applications.
Now, you are right, this means OpenBSD is likely to never get as large a following as Linux or even FreeBSD, but they honestly don't care. They are making a system that fits their goals, and security is among the top goals.
This actually allows security to spread: Once these changes are on a 'major' system, applications start to be ported to work with them, which means the changes can be ported to other systems.
OpenBSD is a security testing ground. If it's features get in your way, you use a different system. This won't be the first time that advice will have been applicable.
The interface was different. (Some really hated it.) Separate windows for everything, unlike all the all-in-one clients you see today. Very useful for reviewing three-four old messages while working on the current one.
It supported IMAP, completely.
It had separate identities, which could be tied to folders. An identity could have different signature(s), quoting preferences, set any header. Reply to a message in a folder and the reply would automatically get the identity. (Wonderful for mailing lists.)
PGP or GPG support.
Full quoting tools, including rewrap, indent, unindent, paste as quoted...
Basically if you spent the time to learn the program, it could greatly ease your email life. It has feature sets that I have seen in no other client. Much like emacs. I can see why some would not like it, but... I hope my version will keep working a long time...
Your technical support example is just economics, not overall comprehension. Put quite simply: a technical support person only has to be able to solve or re-direct the calls they are expected to get.
In the mid-80's or so, a technical support person could be expected to be one a very few people doing that job at a particular company, and was most likely to handle calls from people who knew a fair amount about the system they were using. So, the person had to be able to answer questions on a wide range of systems (because there was no one to re-direct the calls to), and answer complex problems (because simple problems would be solved without their intervention.)
Today a technical support rep is likely to get "Why doesn't the cupholder work anymore?" calls, and is likely to be part of a large team. So, they only need a little information about a few topics: Anything else they can refer on/over, if needed, or assume is unanswerable (because the cost of answering the question is greater than the cost of not being able to answer it).
Given that, you don't need as knowledgeable personell behind the phones. And, since less knowledgable personel are cheaper than more knowledgeable personel, they are more likely to get hired and retained (at that level).
So, technical support personel as a group are being selected for less knowledge. They don't need it anymore, and it is a skill that can be better used (and rewarded) elsewhere.
Several people here have given examples of movies which they feel breaks this 'rule'. I'm sure there are some: it is just a rule-of-thumb after all. An excellent director, with an excellent cast and script, can break any rule.
However, take a good look at your exceptions first. Quite often people who you think are main characters aren't: they are supporting characters, who are in reality are nothing more than archetypes with a quirk. Sometimes they are actors playing themselves, or even their best-known character. None of that breaks the rule: they are characterized someplace else (in popular culture), and not in the movie. Because of that, the movie can concentrate on those it really needs to.
Oh, and for movie series: The rule, I feel, still holds to an extent. No one movie in the series can have to many main characters. Either the movies are so interlinked they can't be separately watched, or each installment will focus on a subset of the characters.
A supervillian can have superpowered henchmen. Henchmen are unlimited. (Provided they are used as background characters.)
Actually, I think the orgnial point is a specific case of a general rule: A movie can have no more than two-three main characters, before it starts to suck. This is in essence based on the fact that it takes some screen time to devlop a character, and there is only so much time in a movie. So, any time you have more than two or three main characters you end up underdeveloping one or all of them. If you underdevelop one, they are no longer a main character. If you underdevelop all, your movie just became trash.
Slashdot Mirror
That A9.com discount sounds like a privacy issue to me. Someone should look into the security implications.
A directional, single-use EMP gun is fairly easy to build. Basic premise is to take a tube of explosive, wrap an electromagnet around it, then set off the explosive from one end. There are directions around... These are fairly low-power devices, but can take out most normal electronics at close range.
Of course, anyone who is actually worried about EMP devices being used against them can shield their equipment. It's not particularly hard, just expensive and inconvient. All you need is a Fariday Cage around the electronics you need shielded.
Sure they can.
The fact that Microsoft is thinking about it is news, as well as why. Sure they have the right, but it seems the reason to do it is to threaten a country into doing what they want. (By leaving them outside of a technological loop, where everyone else is likely to have a product they don't.) This is interesting because: A company has the power to inconvience a country; Microsoft is acting like a bully; Microsoft obviously isn't seeing all the long-term implications of this.
If Microsoft succedes, they have proven a multi-national company can be above a particular country's law, and we may be on the way to an overtly corporate-run globe. If it is not a bluff and S. Korea calls it, OSS in all it various forms will get a boost, and we will get to see exactly how much power Microsoft has. If Microsoft backs down, they look like a scared bully and lose prestige. (Especally amoung governments.)
This is a high-stakes move from Microsoft. It will be interesing to watch. Most likely is some compromise position, which still shows a lot of power in Microsoft's hands.
A trademark can be used by anyone to refer to the owner of the trademark. (With or without approval, as long as you do not violate any other laws.)
An encyclopedia would likely be using it to refer to the owner, and not implying the trademark owner endorses them in any way. Therefore, there is no problem.
Check the law yourself. Trademarks don't have to be registered. Registering them just confers additional benifits.
(Though, admittedly, if this is the tack they are taking, it is probably being registered as we speak.)
Trademark should cover it. The Onion is using the presidential seal to mark their own documents, not to refer to the president's. That's a trademark infraction.
Trademarks can be lost if not defended. The US government may well be legally obligated to pursuse this case...
Not at this level. It would increase the cost to much.
And a Sterling engine will work in microgravity and in a vacuum. It just takes more work. Heat dissipation is a problem, but not an unsolvable one.
Stirling Engine. Definately. That way, you don't have to carry extra 'fuel'.
I can see this working. A stirling engine, with the 'heating' chamber on the outside. Target it with a laser (not allowed this year, but will be next), and you'll have a very efficent climber.
You do need to track the machine with the laser (it might help to shoot straight up), and dissipating the heat would be a problem for a 'real' application (heat doesn't dissipate as easy in a vacum), but that wouldn't be a problem for the heights we are talking about here.
I bet we could build one for less than $50 grand...
The hacked GPL code must be avalible to anyone they sell the device to, and a copy of the GPL (stating what componets it applies to) needs to be in the documentation shipped with the product.
The custom code can probably stay closed source, depending on exactly how closely it is integrated with GPL code.
Note that nothing need be downloadable. If they ship the device with a documentation CD that includes the source code for the GPL'd tools and the licence terms, they are fine.
One comment I've seen regarding the Nano's scratching pointed out there was a reason why the Nano's are more likely to appear scratched, even when they aren't as scratched a previous versions: The new case design. In the previous iPods, the front resin rounded over and blended into the sides. In the Nano (and now the 5th gen iPod), the face has clear, 'sharp' (in comparison) corners.
The effect of this is to give the new iPods more 'depth' in their apprence, and a crisper, cleaner, face. Part of why this effect occurs though is that the new form-factor allows light from the sides as well as the direct light, and gives the resin finish more of a prisim effect. As a result, a minor scratch is more noticeable: it has more effect on the light you are seeing the iPod with.
Of course, none of that implies that Apple cut down on the amount of resin. Just that scratches are more noticable. Whether that is a design problem or not is open to interpetation.
If it is not included, does that mean it is impossible to read the data? Or does it mean that there is no DRM on the data?
If the latter, I'm against Managed Copy. If it's the former, I'm reluctantly for it.
Actually, if you want to give the UN teeth you are going to have to work a little harder than that.
The UN cannot do anything in any country unless that country allows it. Anything they do is a voluntary action. Now, they can agree to impose sanctions, but those are based on other contries voluntarially following the sanctions.
Personally, I'd like to see this changed. I can see how it would scare lots of people though. (And how come we'll never get countries to agree to it.)
Still, every time I see agruments about how the UN should do something, and why isn't it, I always want to shout: They Can't. It is against their charter. Therefore, they resort to diplomacy. Because it is all they are allowed to do.
And you know who put that in the charter? The US.
Where are my mod points when I need them?
That would probably depend on the type of trespass. I've got a copy of "Black's Law Dictionary", which has two whole pages of different types of trespass...
The world has generally come to the conclusion (based largely on the US's example), that the way to avoid having a tyrant run amok with a resource is to have it accountable to a representative or democratic system. The Internet is a globally used and relied upon resource, which is currently is under the control of one country. Other countries are saying that it should be under a more democratic system.
The general theory is that no one group or person can abuse a resource accountable to a democratic body because they would have to get the consent of those they were about to abuse. This has generally proven effective.
Would the US abuse their power? Maybe. Probably, under the right circumstances. I'd say they are better than most countries.
The UN is the only actual democratic body representing people on a global scale. It would make sense to have them in charge of a global resource. Are they perfect? No. But for this I believe they are at least as good as the US.
As for trusting to invent it... Irrelevent. No one relied on it then. Now they do, and they have all helped build it.
Water pressure increases by about 15 pounds per square inch (one atmosphere) for every 33 feet you go down. I'm not exactly sure how much that translates to in density: that depends on the compressibility of water, but it should be safe enough to say you can push about that much harder against the water before it cavitates. (And cavitation is a submariner's worst enemy: it steals speed, and makes noise.)
No they don't. Old-style diesel subs would surface to cruise faster, but that was because they could cruise faster on diesel power than on electric, and they had to have fresh air for the diesel engines. (And they needed to save the battery power for when they really needed it.)
Nuclear subs can actually cruise faster at depth: They have power, and the propellers can push harder against the denser water.
You forgot one step: When talking to either side you don't bring up the validity of either side's claim. This means when talking to the People's Republic of China (for instance) you don't list provinces (officially), so the povince of Taiwan isn't conspicous by being or not being on the list.
Google is in a bad position: They have a nuetral product, easily accessable, which shows political divisions. Taiwan shows up on the product, so it needs to be inside or outside a boundry. A diplomat's words can leave it's status undefined, a map cannot.
Most accurate would probably be to mark the area claimed by the Republic of China as 'Under dispute', but neither side would like that...
Actually, for OpenBSD, it will work. And has.
The reason is very simple: There will always be some applications where the security of the system is a paramount point. Where it does have to do with the application. OpenBSD caters directly to those people, and those applications.
Now, you are right, this means OpenBSD is likely to never get as large a following as Linux or even FreeBSD, but they honestly don't care. They are making a system that fits their goals, and security is among the top goals.
This actually allows security to spread: Once these changes are on a 'major' system, applications start to be ported to work with them, which means the changes can be ported to other systems.
OpenBSD is a security testing ground. If it's features get in your way, you use a different system. This won't be the first time that advice will have been applicable.
The interface was different. (Some really hated it.) Separate windows for everything, unlike all the all-in-one clients you see today. Very useful for reviewing three-four old messages while working on the current one.
It supported IMAP, completely.
It had separate identities, which could be tied to folders. An identity could have different signature(s), quoting preferences, set any header. Reply to a message in a folder and the reply would automatically get the identity. (Wonderful for mailing lists.)
PGP or GPG support.
Full quoting tools, including rewrap, indent, unindent, paste as quoted...
Basically if you spent the time to learn the program, it could greatly ease your email life. It has feature sets that I have seen in no other client. Much like emacs. I can see why some would not like it, but... I hope my version will keep working a long time...
Your technical support example is just economics, not overall comprehension. Put quite simply: a technical support person only has to be able to solve or re-direct the calls they are expected to get.
In the mid-80's or so, a technical support person could be expected to be one a very few people doing that job at a particular company, and was most likely to handle calls from people who knew a fair amount about the system they were using. So, the person had to be able to answer questions on a wide range of systems (because there was no one to re-direct the calls to), and answer complex problems (because simple problems would be solved without their intervention.)
Today a technical support rep is likely to get "Why doesn't the cupholder work anymore?" calls, and is likely to be part of a large team. So, they only need a little information about a few topics: Anything else they can refer on/over, if needed, or assume is unanswerable (because the cost of answering the question is greater than the cost of not being able to answer it).
Given that, you don't need as knowledgeable personell behind the phones. And, since less knowledgable personel are cheaper than more knowledgeable personel, they are more likely to get hired and retained (at that level).
So, technical support personel as a group are being selected for less knowledge. They don't need it anymore, and it is a skill that can be better used (and rewarded) elsewhere.
Several people here have given examples of movies which they feel breaks this 'rule'. I'm sure there are some: it is just a rule-of-thumb after all. An excellent director, with an excellent cast and script, can break any rule.
However, take a good look at your exceptions first. Quite often people who you think are main characters aren't: they are supporting characters, who are in reality are nothing more than archetypes with a quirk. Sometimes they are actors playing themselves, or even their best-known character. None of that breaks the rule: they are characterized someplace else (in popular culture), and not in the movie. Because of that, the movie can concentrate on those it really needs to.
Oh, and for movie series: The rule, I feel, still holds to an extent. No one movie in the series can have to many main characters. Either the movies are so interlinked they can't be separately watched, or each installment will focus on a subset of the characters.
A supervillian can have superpowered henchmen. Henchmen are unlimited. (Provided they are used as background characters.)
Actually, I think the orgnial point is a specific case of a general rule: A movie can have no more than two-three main characters, before it starts to suck. This is in essence based on the fact that it takes some screen time to devlop a character, and there is only so much time in a movie. So, any time you have more than two or three main characters you end up underdeveloping one or all of them. If you underdevelop one, they are no longer a main character. If you underdevelop all, your movie just became trash.
You're assuming anyone ever did.
Hey, SCO is still in the Unix business!
...the way a tapeworm is in a dog...