On the contrary, Jack Chick is the logical conclusion of christianity. Once you reject science and reason in favor of a sky fairy whose presence can be detected by a feeling in your heart, you might as well just start making other shit up, which is exactly what Chick does daily.
Also, D&D will turn you into Pentagram-doodling witch and the only way to come back to Jeebus is to burn all your D&D stuff (and heck, better throw all your other books on the fire, too).
hey could be as fast to the target as a conventional cruise missile
They'd need to be, given that a conventional cruise missile (by which I understand you mean a turbofan or turbojet cruise missle, not one armed with a conventional payload) cruises at 550kts, rather less than the speed of sound, and a scramjet doesn't even start operating at less than Mach 5.
cheaper than battleships and aircraft carriers hauling them to where they're needed
The US doesn't use battelships at all, and our aircraft carriers are not armed with offensive missiles (although they are armed with an air defense missile known as the Sea Sparrow, and guns). Our sea-launched cruise missle, the Tomahawk, is carried on destroyers like the Arleigh Burke and submarines like Los Angeles.
Aside from ships, cruise missiles can be launched by a B-52, which can carry 20 of them on a single sortie. During Desert Storm, B-52s flew a 14,000-mile mission to launch these missiles. If you wanted a missile that could fly these distances by itself, it would have to be about the size of a 747 just to carry its own fuel.
cheaper than ICBMs too.
Now you're getting somewhere. Scramjets might have a future in boosting payloads to extremely high altitudes or low orbits.
So, where would you keep all the fuel? Scramjets can produce a lot of thrust, and they can sustain very high speeds, but they are not efficient. The whole point of a cruise missile is that it cruises, that is to say it operates at very efficient speeds for maximum range.
Scramjets are less efficient than ramjets, much less efficient than turbojets, and way, way less efficient that the turbofans used in the longest-range cruise missiles and civilian aircraft. And what's worse is, you need some other form of propulsion to get to the speeds needed for scramjet operation.
Well I have an idea for those nitwits at Best Buy. Instead of cooking up ways to rip people off (manufacturer rebates, restricted sales, etc), why don't they cut all the crap and just offer a good price? That would end rebate & return abuse instantly.
Personally, I never consider rebates or any other future transaction when I make a purchase. Whatever amount of money changes hands at the sale is the price, nevermind the rebates.
Have you ever seen the size of the receipts they give you for a plain cash transaction at CompUSA? I've seen shorter acts of Congress.
I don't know when we started being so collectively condescending to the average computer user, but there was a time when you might tell a user to copy a file on their computer and reasonably believe they could do it. These days, most people approach the user like you might approach your retarded cousin who was raised by ferrets on a remote island: don't tell them anything, you might frighten or confuse them (unfrozen-caveman-lawyer style).
Personally, I have faith in people, and when someone asks me how to copy files off their iPod, I show them how to do it with the normal shell commands or file manager interfaces. The belief that people need a WYSIWYG GUI application to move files between storage devices is, I think, a result of the incorrect and insulting attitude that developers are so much smarter than their users.
To make this of any use at all you need to be able to reverse from the hash to the plaintext in O(1) time, which certainly limits the cleverness of the available compression schemes. The one downthread which only stores the plaintext, in hash order, is smart but only reduces the storage by half. You couldn't compress the plaintext with that scheme, because then you wouldn't be able to address it directly (although you could probably compress it in chunks and record the real starting address of each chunk). Even if you did I'd guess you would have reduced the storage by at most a factor of 5, which still isn't anywhere near fitting on a solitary disk.
Assuming you have to store 7 bytes for the hash and 7 bytes for the plain text, that's 14 bytes per record and 68^7 records, or 86PiB. At today's density that's a bit over 200 hard drives, not "a single hard drive."
Why not? A terabyte fits in a briefcase these days, and a remote attacker is not constrained by space. A petabyte of storage is barely one rack's worth and not very expensive, either.
The Sony Style store in San Francisco is hideous. If the new stores are patterned after it, they will flop. The store is full of maladjusted plasma and lcd televisions, clock radios that don't keep time, minidisc players nobody wants, MP3 players that don't play MP3s, and, before they abandoned the business, Palm handhelds in various states of disintegration.
Agreed. When using the AVR I frequently wish I had more serial ports, more interrupt pins, more ADCs, more DACs, and maybe a hardware quadrature implementation, but I never though to myself "Gee this would be so much better if I had 32 bit words!" I'm sure there's applications for this out there, but at the present time I'm not thinking of putting Linux on my oscilloscope.
Some people spend hours every day triaging bugs. Bugzilla is a workflow miracle in the sense that it allows this volume of bugs to be dealt with effectively. For most bugs someone will file the issue, then a Bugzilla helper will come along and check if it's a duplicate, if it can be reproduced, and if it is possible to produce a testcase. If it's a duplicate the helper needs to find the root bug, mark the new one duplicate, then someone else has to come along with privileges to verify it. If it can be confirmed the helper has to mark it as confirmed and probably move it to the right component. If it can't be confirmed he will probably note that fact and leave the bug alone, although if nobody can reproduce it will likely get marked works-for-me. In either case someone has to come along later and verify the resolution.
The sheer amount of clicking required in Bugzilla is staggering. It's a credit to the user community that they've managed it so effectively.
Speaking of existing security bugs in Firefox & Mozilla, here's a security bug that's been open for 3.5 years and really needs some hero to come in and fix it. (The bug is assigned to me but I'm not qualified and don't have the time to come up with a real solution).
The bug was on bugtraq in 2001! It allows remote pages to open and use files on the local machine, and is also a denial of service on Linux, since Mozilla stupidly allows the opening of paths which are not regular files (/dev/tty).
My experience with 69070 has been educational. I've learned if there's a security bug you care about, you had better fix it yourself. Unfortunately I can't but maybe someone in the audience has the spare time to step up.
Sure, it's a point, and it's a good reason to never use bitmaps in a UI. But the software or even the hardware could still be smart enough to scale the bitmap to the display size. In your trivial example the 1:2 scaling would be indistinguishable from the original.
The concept of a pixel shouldn't exist outside of the actual graphics hardware and its drivers, because a "pixel" is a completely vague unit of measure. Nobody knows what actual area it represents.
I just grabbed a copy of the New York Times and there's plenty of 6pt type on it (photographers' credits and other places). At high resolution 6pt is readable.
One last time you innumerate morons: resolution improved quality and does not affect size. Try printing the same page at 300, 600, and 1200dpi. Does it come out 4 times smaller on the 1200? Does it look better?
Yeah, the HD coverage of the US Open was really great. I especially like how it switched to SD for the entire second set of the men's final. Thanks a lot, CBS.
I agree with the upthread, and I'm about ready to cancel my Comcast service. All I watch is 1 hour of TV on HBO every Sunday, maybe one college football game, if a good team is on and in HD (otherwise I prefer the radio broadcasts), and if I'm feeling particularly unambitious, reruns of Law & Order. Hardly worth the $80/month it's costing me.
Also the CompressCast image quality tends to be terrible. HBO usually looks good, and the other HD channels look okay, but the Olympics coverage was compressed to an unrecognizable tile mosaic, and the remainder of the 700+ standard-def channels are all squeezed into what appears to be about 100kHz of bandwidth. They just look horrible.
I appreciate your argument, and as I said above I actually agree completely! I think nuclear plants may be more numerous than you realize, however. The USA has more than 100 power-generating reactors and the Navy has hundreds more (some operating, some retired). All of these have been operated quite safely for a while. By comparison we have about 600 coal-fired generating plants, which is substantially more but not by a huge factor.
I just ran through some figures, and a standard US reactor creates about 1 cubic meter of waste per gigawatt-year of energy generated. That's incredible efficiency. And 99.9% of the radiation from the waste is given off within the first 10 years after removal from the reactor. If coal-fired plants were held to the same radiation emissions standards as are fission plants, it would be completely uneconomical to use coal power, and we'd be building reactors all over the place. Nuclear only looks expensive because, for the first time in energy history, all the externalities are accounted for.
Oh by the way, there's more potential fission energy in the uranium contained in coal than could ever be derived from burning the coal. Today we just blow this uranium up the stack and into your lungs.
OK, I agree. There should not be any more coal, gas, or oil fired power plants built until we have figured out how to store their waste.
Get my point? Petro power spews a gazillion tons of crap into the atmosphere every year. Nuclear power generates a few hundreds of tons of spent fuel. So why hold nuclear power to a higher standard?
PS Coal exhaust exposes more people to radioactive elements than have ever been affected by a nuclear accident.
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary, Jack Chick is the logical conclusion of christianity. Once you reject science and reason in favor of a sky fairy whose presence can be detected by a feeling in your heart, you might as well just start making other shit up, which is exactly what Chick does daily.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go carjack an old LTD, provoke a gang war, then go for some pizza and hookers.
They'd need to be, given that a conventional cruise missile (by which I understand you mean a turbofan or turbojet cruise missle, not one armed with a conventional payload) cruises at 550kts, rather less than the speed of sound, and a scramjet doesn't even start operating at less than Mach 5.
The US doesn't use battelships at all, and our aircraft carriers are not armed with offensive missiles (although they are armed with an air defense missile known as the Sea Sparrow, and guns). Our sea-launched cruise missle, the Tomahawk, is carried on destroyers like the Arleigh Burke and submarines like Los Angeles.
Aside from ships, cruise missiles can be launched by a B-52, which can carry 20 of them on a single sortie. During Desert Storm, B-52s flew a 14,000-mile mission to launch these missiles. If you wanted a missile that could fly these distances by itself, it would have to be about the size of a 747 just to carry its own fuel.
Now you're getting somewhere. Scramjets might have a future in boosting payloads to extremely high altitudes or low orbits.
Scramjets are less efficient than ramjets, much less efficient than turbojets, and way, way less efficient that the turbofans used in the longest-range cruise missiles and civilian aircraft. And what's worse is, you need some other form of propulsion to get to the speeds needed for scramjet operation.
Personally, I never consider rebates or any other future transaction when I make a purchase. Whatever amount of money changes hands at the sale is the price, nevermind the rebates.
Have you ever seen the size of the receipts they give you for a plain cash transaction at CompUSA? I've seen shorter acts of Congress.
I don't know when we started being so collectively condescending to the average computer user, but there was a time when you might tell a user to copy a file on their computer and reasonably believe they could do it. These days, most people approach the user like you might approach your retarded cousin who was raised by ferrets on a remote island: don't tell them anything, you might frighten or confuse them (unfrozen-caveman-lawyer style).
Personally, I have faith in people, and when someone asks me how to copy files off their iPod, I show them how to do it with the normal shell commands or file manager interfaces. The belief that people need a WYSIWYG GUI application to move files between storage devices is, I think, a result of the incorrect and insulting attitude that developers are so much smarter than their users.
To make this of any use at all you need to be able to reverse from the hash to the plaintext in O(1) time, which certainly limits the cleverness of the available compression schemes. The one downthread which only stores the plaintext, in hash order, is smart but only reduces the storage by half. You couldn't compress the plaintext with that scheme, because then you wouldn't be able to address it directly (although you could probably compress it in chunks and record the real starting address of each chunk). Even if you did I'd guess you would have reduced the storage by at most a factor of 5, which still isn't anywhere near fitting on a solitary disk.
Assuming you have to store 7 bytes for the hash and 7 bytes for the plain text, that's 14 bytes per record and 68^7 records, or 86PiB. At today's density that's a bit over 200 hard drives, not "a single hard drive."
Why not? A terabyte fits in a briefcase these days, and a remote attacker is not constrained by space. A petabyte of storage is barely one rack's worth and not very expensive, either.
Here are some much larger, high-quality images.
Oh, and no customers.
That's nothing. A group of scientists invented the Internet without using the Internet.
DO NOT INSTALL REALPLAYER!!!
Agreed. When using the AVR I frequently wish I had more serial ports, more interrupt pins, more ADCs, more DACs, and maybe a hardware quadrature implementation, but I never though to myself "Gee this would be so much better if I had 32 bit words!" I'm sure there's applications for this out there, but at the present time I'm not thinking of putting Linux on my oscilloscope.
The sheer amount of clicking required in Bugzilla is staggering. It's a credit to the user community that they've managed it so effectively.
It does allow the remote server to discover if the local file exists, which is an improper disclosure.
Bug 69070
The bug was on bugtraq in 2001! It allows remote pages to open and use files on the local machine, and is also a denial of service on Linux, since Mozilla stupidly allows the opening of paths which are not regular files (/dev/tty).
My experience with 69070 has been educational. I've learned if there's a security bug you care about, you had better fix it yourself. Unfortunately I can't but maybe someone in the audience has the spare time to step up.
Sounds like a software error.
The concept of a pixel shouldn't exist outside of the actual graphics hardware and its drivers, because a "pixel" is a completely vague unit of measure. Nobody knows what actual area it represents.
If either of 640x480 or 1280x960 were a resolution, you'd have a point. But 640x480 is a size, and you do not have a point.
I just grabbed a copy of the New York Times and there's plenty of 6pt type on it (photographers' credits and other places). At high resolution 6pt is readable.
One last time you innumerate morons: resolution improved quality and does not affect size. Try printing the same page at 300, 600, and 1200dpi. Does it come out 4 times smaller on the 1200? Does it look better?
Yeah, the HD coverage of the US Open was really great. I especially like how it switched to SD for the entire second set of the men's final. Thanks a lot, CBS.
I agree with the upthread, and I'm about ready to cancel my Comcast service. All I watch is 1 hour of TV on HBO every Sunday, maybe one college football game, if a good team is on and in HD (otherwise I prefer the radio broadcasts), and if I'm feeling particularly unambitious, reruns of Law & Order. Hardly worth the $80/month it's costing me.
Also the CompressCast image quality tends to be terrible. HBO usually looks good, and the other HD channels look okay, but the Olympics coverage was compressed to an unrecognizable tile mosaic, and the remainder of the 700+ standard-def channels are all squeezed into what appears to be about 100kHz of bandwidth. They just look horrible.
I just ran through some figures, and a standard US reactor creates about 1 cubic meter of waste per gigawatt-year of energy generated. That's incredible efficiency. And 99.9% of the radiation from the waste is given off within the first 10 years after removal from the reactor. If coal-fired plants were held to the same radiation emissions standards as are fission plants, it would be completely uneconomical to use coal power, and we'd be building reactors all over the place. Nuclear only looks expensive because, for the first time in energy history, all the externalities are accounted for.
Oh by the way, there's more potential fission energy in the uranium contained in coal than could ever be derived from burning the coal. Today we just blow this uranium up the stack and into your lungs.
Get my point? Petro power spews a gazillion tons of crap into the atmosphere every year. Nuclear power generates a few hundreds of tons of spent fuel. So why hold nuclear power to a higher standard?
PS Coal exhaust exposes more people to radioactive elements than have ever been affected by a nuclear accident.