Only if reductionism works for walking. There are some systems where simplifying the system removes the interesting behavior. You may be able to understand the complex system, but be unable to build a replica due to physical limitations.
You should never forge your lab data. You SHOULD calculate an expected measurement, and an acceptable margin of error. If your measurements come out beyond that you then know you likely did something wrong, and should re-measure and check your setup.
One could also say that someone deciding to use an airliner as a guided missile requires someone insane enough to want to use themselves as the guidance system. Better mental health treatment might help such people.
Rock salt (or nastier bacon bits) in a shotgun shell won't penetrate well enough to be lethal, but they'll hurt like hell, and the bacon will fester and infect the wounds if not removed at a hospital. If you just shot a thief or such, then it gives the police a chance to arrest them when they go in for treatment.
Yes, that's to be expected, but why there wouldn't also be more mass on the near side, and a low-mass region around the border is what I don't know enough to explain.
Probably some relation to orbital mechanics, Luna likely became tidally locked to the Earth before it had fully cooled. The tidal forces on Luna would have affected how the materials settled. I'm not an expert on this by any means, so I can't calculate what exactly would happen.
Well, even if you have very low current you can just charge your phone over a longer time period. Say, a few decades. It would be perfect for people waiting at a DMV, for example!
Google maps uses images from aircraft, not spacecraft. But yes, the quality of the optics matters. A spacecraft with a big telescope, like a spy satellite, will have a much easier time seeing things on the ground than an astronaut with only eyes.
Security against known-plaintext and chosen-plaintext attacks is important for modern cryptosystems. Any that are vulnerable to them are considered insecure. So here he's actually right, for once in his life.
A lot of it is quite small and light, but some things will remain heavy and large for the foreseeable future. The optics are the main part of this, you need a large aperture to gather enough light to get clear shots while moving, and you need a long focal length to get good shots from high altitude. That means a pretty big set of lenses. And you want a lens for each camera. Now, it's nowhere near 5000 pounds, but it will be quite a bit heavier than your cell phone's camera.
GFLOPS = Billion Floating Point Operations per Second GFLOPS per second = Billion Floating Point Operations per Second per Second. It's an acceleration unit, and a mistake.
They can exist outside of galaxies, but they can't account for all the features of dark matter. For one, they will absorb and re-emit light. The absorption spectra would show up, just like they show up for dark nebulae (like the horsehead nebula). More importantly the creation of dark matter in the early universe is consistent with what we know about the cosmic microwave background. Essentially if dark matter was created at the same time as all the other matter, and was non-baryonic, then certain effects should be seen in the cosmic microwave background. These effects are seen. Any theory of dark matter that requires planets, comets, gas, or dust to have formed (or anything more than a lot of protons, mostly hydrogen and a little helium and pretty much nothing else) can't explain this effect. Dark matter can explain this, AND galaxy rotations, AND the velocity dispersions of galaxies, AND gravitational lensing in locations where baryonic matter can't be doing the lensing AND several other things that dark matter seems to explain at least somewhat well. Any theory that competes with non-baryonic dark matter has to explain all the same things, or give a good reason that some other theory would also better explain the other things. Since dark matter is currently the simplest theory that fits all available evidence it's the one that gets the most consideration. Alternative theories are studied, but none of them yet work for all the observations. That doesn't mean dark matter is the right theory, just that it's the best we have at the moment.
Quick version of the dark matter theory: Some things are wrong with our current theories. There seems like there should be a LOT more mass in the universe than we observe, galaxy clusters should fly apart because gravity can't hold them together with their observable mass, and things like the bullet cluster show gravitational lensing where there isn't any observable matter to cause the lensing. Until we find out what's wrong, it's useful to have a short placeholder term to talk about these (and related) phenomena without going through the whole list every time. Since the effects are gravitational, and matter causes gravitational effects via mass, we can call it matter. Since it doesn't seem to interact electromagnetically it won't absorb or emit light, so it's dark. Of course, it could be a fundamental error in our theory of gravity. No one has yet come up with a new theory that explains all the effects that works better than "well, it's this stuff that has mass and is dark." There are several theories that explain parts of it, but none that explain all. For example MOND works nicely for the galaxy cluster rotation issue, but utterly fails to explain the bullet cluster. So it's called "dark matter" because that's the most coherent answer to the question, but the name is likely to change when we figure out what the issue is actually caused by.
It's perfectly OK to store unencrypted files in the cloud, but only if you want everyone to have access. It can be a lot easier to use a "cloud" site and let sharing be public (like Dropbox, mega, etc) to host a file than to use other methods (FTP, having a website, etc). The cloud is terrible at keeping your data private, but it's pretty nice if you want to make your data public.
Zimmermann, Ferguson, Rivest, Knudsen, etc. If enough of them agree they're probably right, and trustworthy. Especially Zimmermann, his history of supporting privacy and his willingness to risk jail time by releasing PGP to the public speak quite a lot for his character.
There are a few problems with a national ID card for the US. First, it has to be free. Second, it has to be possible for every US citizen to get one. Many people in the US can't easily get to any federal buildings to authenticate themselves.
For example, the Unorganized Borough of Alaska had a population of over 81,000 people in 2000, about 13% of the state population. This area has no local government other than schools, and much of the population lives very far from even those services. There is simply no feasible way to distribute ID cards to every citizen in the US without either extreme expense to the government or to the citizens.
Some of us crazy engineering types have made computers. In unmodded minecraft. Mostly because we can. It has NOT gates and OR gates, and that's all we really need. Myself, I implement cryptographic algorithms in Minecraft, when I have the time (rarely). There's no real use for it, and I'm under no illusion that they actually end up secure (a single creeper is a pretty good DOS attack) but it's fun to do.
It's a fun exercise to make a computer at the gate level.
Use a message authentication code to ensure the hash was sent from the iPhone registered to the appropriate user. That way an attacker needs both the hash of the password and the secret key stored on the phone.
And even if the hash becomes the password, at least it isn't the same as every other password the user uses for every service. Whereas the original password probably is.
I think that mostly reflects people's perceptions of their own knowledge on the subject. Most people don't know enough, and don't think they know enough, to say much more than "ooh, shiny!" But everyone knows a bit about Facebook and Android and such, or at least they think they know such things, so they feel qualified to post their thoughts on the matter.
For this post, if every/. reader posted the discussion would likely resemble the dialogue of the "space sphere" from Portal 2.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if reductionism works for walking. There are some systems where simplifying the system removes the interesting behavior. You may be able to understand the complex system, but be unable to build a replica due to physical limitations.
Well, if Brian May can do it why can't a rapper?
You should never forge your lab data.
You SHOULD calculate an expected measurement, and an acceptable margin of error. If your measurements come out beyond that you then know you likely did something wrong, and should re-measure and check your setup.
One could also say that someone deciding to use an airliner as a guided missile requires someone insane enough to want to use themselves as the guidance system. Better mental health treatment might help such people.
It depends on whether one is in Texas or not.
Rock salt (or nastier bacon bits) in a shotgun shell won't penetrate well enough to be lethal, but they'll hurt like hell, and the bacon will fester and infect the wounds if not removed at a hospital. If you just shot a thief or such, then it gives the police a chance to arrest them when they go in for treatment.
Yes, that's to be expected, but why there wouldn't also be more mass on the near side, and a low-mass region around the border is what I don't know enough to explain.
Probably some relation to orbital mechanics, Luna likely became tidally locked to the Earth before it had fully cooled. The tidal forces on Luna would have affected how the materials settled. I'm not an expert on this by any means, so I can't calculate what exactly would happen.
Well, even if you have very low current you can just charge your phone over a longer time period. Say, a few decades. It would be perfect for people waiting at a DMV, for example!
Google maps uses images from aircraft, not spacecraft.
But yes, the quality of the optics matters. A spacecraft with a big telescope, like a spy satellite, will have a much easier time seeing things on the ground than an astronaut with only eyes.
Given the behavior of the Catholic church, it's an accurate description.
Security against known-plaintext and chosen-plaintext attacks is important for modern cryptosystems. Any that are vulnerable to them are considered insecure. So here he's actually right, for once in his life.
No, the question is, "If they signed a contract to provide X, and did not provide X, why did they get paid?"
If you modified it to have a 60 round magazine you could probably put 60 rounds a minute on target with a Lee Enfield bolt action rifle.
If marriage is outlawed only outlaws will have inlaws.
A lot of it is quite small and light, but some things will remain heavy and large for the foreseeable future. The optics are the main part of this, you need a large aperture to gather enough light to get clear shots while moving, and you need a long focal length to get good shots from high altitude. That means a pretty big set of lenses. And you want a lens for each camera. Now, it's nowhere near 5000 pounds, but it will be quite a bit heavier than your cell phone's camera.
GFLOPS = Billion Floating Point Operations per Second
GFLOPS per second = Billion Floating Point Operations per Second per Second. It's an acceleration unit, and a mistake.
They can exist outside of galaxies, but they can't account for all the features of dark matter.
For one, they will absorb and re-emit light. The absorption spectra would show up, just like they show up for dark nebulae (like the horsehead nebula).
More importantly the creation of dark matter in the early universe is consistent with what we know about the cosmic microwave background. Essentially if dark matter was created at the same time as all the other matter, and was non-baryonic, then certain effects should be seen in the cosmic microwave background. These effects are seen. Any theory of dark matter that requires planets, comets, gas, or dust to have formed (or anything more than a lot of protons, mostly hydrogen and a little helium and pretty much nothing else) can't explain this effect.
Dark matter can explain this, AND galaxy rotations, AND the velocity dispersions of galaxies, AND gravitational lensing in locations where baryonic matter can't be doing the lensing AND several other things that dark matter seems to explain at least somewhat well. Any theory that competes with non-baryonic dark matter has to explain all the same things, or give a good reason that some other theory would also better explain the other things. Since dark matter is currently the simplest theory that fits all available evidence it's the one that gets the most consideration. Alternative theories are studied, but none of them yet work for all the observations. That doesn't mean dark matter is the right theory, just that it's the best we have at the moment.
Quick version of the dark matter theory:
Some things are wrong with our current theories. There seems like there should be a LOT more mass in the universe than we observe, galaxy clusters should fly apart because gravity can't hold them together with their observable mass, and things like the bullet cluster show gravitational lensing where there isn't any observable matter to cause the lensing.
Until we find out what's wrong, it's useful to have a short placeholder term to talk about these (and related) phenomena without going through the whole list every time. Since the effects are gravitational, and matter causes gravitational effects via mass, we can call it matter. Since it doesn't seem to interact electromagnetically it won't absorb or emit light, so it's dark.
Of course, it could be a fundamental error in our theory of gravity. No one has yet come up with a new theory that explains all the effects that works better than "well, it's this stuff that has mass and is dark." There are several theories that explain parts of it, but none that explain all. For example MOND works nicely for the galaxy cluster rotation issue, but utterly fails to explain the bullet cluster.
So it's called "dark matter" because that's the most coherent answer to the question, but the name is likely to change when we figure out what the issue is actually caused by.
It's perfectly OK to store unencrypted files in the cloud, but only if you want everyone to have access. It can be a lot easier to use a "cloud" site and let sharing be public (like Dropbox, mega, etc) to host a file than to use other methods (FTP, having a website, etc). The cloud is terrible at keeping your data private, but it's pretty nice if you want to make your data public.
Zimmermann, Ferguson, Rivest, Knudsen, etc. If enough of them agree they're probably right, and trustworthy. Especially Zimmermann, his history of supporting privacy and his willingness to risk jail time by releasing PGP to the public speak quite a lot for his character.
There are a few problems with a national ID card for the US.
First, it has to be free.
Second, it has to be possible for every US citizen to get one. Many people in the US can't easily get to any federal buildings to authenticate themselves.
For example, the Unorganized Borough of Alaska had a population of over 81,000 people in 2000, about 13% of the state population. This area has no local government other than schools, and much of the population lives very far from even those services. There is simply no feasible way to distribute ID cards to every citizen in the US without either extreme expense to the government or to the citizens.
Some of us crazy engineering types have made computers. In unmodded minecraft. Mostly because we can. It has NOT gates and OR gates, and that's all we really need. Myself, I implement cryptographic algorithms in Minecraft, when I have the time (rarely). There's no real use for it, and I'm under no illusion that they actually end up secure (a single creeper is a pretty good DOS attack) but it's fun to do.
It's a fun exercise to make a computer at the gate level.
Use a message authentication code to ensure the hash was sent from the iPhone registered to the appropriate user. That way an attacker needs both the hash of the password and the secret key stored on the phone.
And even if the hash becomes the password, at least it isn't the same as every other password the user uses for every service. Whereas the original password probably is.
I think that mostly reflects people's perceptions of their own knowledge on the subject. Most people don't know enough, and don't think they know enough, to say much more than "ooh, shiny!" But everyone knows a bit about Facebook and Android and such, or at least they think they know such things, so they feel qualified to post their thoughts on the matter.
/. reader posted the discussion would likely resemble the dialogue of the "space sphere" from Portal 2.
For this post, if every