And honestly, at age 12 for girls, and 14 for boys there is no good reason to forcefully protect them from pornography at all... they're sexually mature at that time.
Physically mature, which has nothing to do with mental maturity, which is what matters. Probably the right age would be whenever they can recognize that fantasy != reality, and Santa Claus doesn't actually exist. That should be strong enough higher thinking skills to separate "some people do this" from "I should do this".
The problem with this though, it would discourage any laws that might be needed.
"What part of "Congress shall make no law [...]" do you not understand?"
Seriously, if they don't get in trouble for that, isn't it kind of an empty rule?
For example, the Patriot Act one could say violated the constitution, but in the few months after 9/11 it might have been needed (now, if it needed renewing is up for debate...)
Because when the shit hits the fan, it's very very important to install cameras in everyone's toilets for six months, so you can watch for the next load of shit that might approach your fan. And never mind that you already have (unwatched) cameras in the sewage pipes, or that piles of shit don't travel in packs like that.
but to penalize the making of bad laws is just stupidity.
Bad laws cause harm. Why should this be treated differently than when other professionals do stupid things that harm people, like an engineer designing a bridge without considering the effects of gravity?
Don't worry they will. e-gold was just smaller and didn't have good enough lawyers. Now that they've got a precedent set, the government will turn its attention towards paypal. The government can't stand to have any "unregulated" exchange of goods, services, or capital.
I've seen advice to never leave significant amounts of money in a paypal account (or occasionally even a bank account that paypal knows about), because they occasionally lock it or take it away and make this hard to fix. Does this mean that these stories and whatever prompted them will go away?
I think before we talk about other places, we should probably get the kinks out of everything by putting something on our own moon.
How about building cities that float in the oceans on earth first? We can already go there, and even do go there all the time. We can get back to land just as easily as we can get to the ocean. It's very fast to get there, weeks or hours depending on whether your city is large enough to have an airport. Going to the moon sounds nice, but we should make and follow through on plans to do something more practical first.
If the corrugations are a little bit smaller than the separation distance, then *maybe* (intuitively it should work, but intuition doesn't work well at these scales). If they're larger, then it's pretty much just about making the effective surface area smaller. Since the article does mention surface area, I think it's probably the latter.
First of all, what does this certification crap prevent?
It shows that the people behind the domain now are the same as the people behind the domain when the certificate was purchased. Which should cost about 5 cents ("Install this crypto script to/verify.php on your server, and get a cert after we fetch it twice a week or so apart.") instead of $XX or $XXX per year.
There are strange quantum effects that mean that nothing can ever really be empty (I think this part is related to the uncertainty principle), but resonant cavities can be more empty than open space (because everything has a wavelength, and resonant cavities are very picky about what wavelengths they allow). So the stuff in the less empty area (outside your MEMS thingy) pushes harder than the smaller amount of stuff in the more empty area (between the parts of your MEMS thingy), and the parts all get stuck together.
My initial guess would be that it has something to do with literal surface area vs. active surface area, the parts that are hidden (inside the grooves) don't count.
I would think that that's based on the idea that Linux adoption is held down by the Windows monopoly (which Apple is supposed to be breaking), rather than by poor awareness and lack of polish.
Here's the danger of not identifying security fixes in your patch logs: If a security fix isn't clearly identified, then customers won't necessarily update it.
How well does this hold if the customers know that fixes don't get special tags for having known security implications? Or when there's an intermediary whose job is specifically to handle such things?
See the Kerneltrap posting which includes a good part of the email discussion.
It looks like Linus' main concern is that publicizing a few bugs as "security" issues will act to hide other real security issues that weren't recognized at fix time; that any effort to publicize security issues will be so incomplete as to be misleading. And I see no mention of these concerns in the linked postings, almost as if the "full disclosure" people posting them are afraid to disclose the potential bugs (which would automatically be security bugs because of the topic) in their own methodologies.
On the basis of, among other things, having just RTFA a few minutes ago on the Wow/Glider story:
The resolution of this issue is controlled by Ninth Circuit law. At least three cases â"
MAI, Triad, and Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriffâ(TM)s Department, 447 F.3d 769
(9th Cir. 2006) â" hold that licensees of a computer program do not âoeownâ their copy of the
program and therefore are not entitled to a section 117 defense. See MAI, 991 F.2d at 518
n.5; Triad 64 F.3d at 1333; Wall Data, 447 F.3d at 784-85. Wall Data provides a two-part
test for determining whether the purchaser of a copy of a software program is a licensee or
an owner: if the copyright holder (1) makes clear that it is granting a license to the copy of
the software, and (2) imposes significant restrictions on the use or transfer of the copy, then
the transaction is a license, not a sale, and the purchaser of the copy is a licensee, not an
âoeownerâ within the meaning of section 117. Wall Data, 447 F.3d at 785.
But that only works if you own a copy of the software, which is why software these days is always "licensed, not sold" in the fine print -- so that that defense (and similar defenses for other activities) won't apply, and the seller can exercise greater control over their sheep^Wcustomers.
Yeah... plus that there's a reply to that comment pointing out that this suit was filed about two weeks ago, so waiting for the WoW case would mean they have time travel.
See this other comment. The precedent they likely want to use is the WoW / Glider case that we discussed yesterday, if you don't follow the EULA then the copy-to-ram that's part of running the software is apparently a copyright violation.
I hear one definition of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result each time.
Wait, so if I roll a bunch of dice, I should actually expect them to come up the same every time? Maybe those superstitions about lucky dice or lucky numbers are actually on to something...
I would love an SSD for r/w performance that blows a mechanical drive out of the water.
It looks like the OCZ drive does this.
I would love an SSD that doesn't use much power.
It looks like the OCZ drive does this, too.
I would love an SSD that's shockproof.
Isn't this a natural result of the "solid state" part of "solid state disk"?
I would love an SSD that runs cool.
Direct result of "doesn't use much power".
I would love an SSD that's silent.
Isn't this a natural result of the "solid state" thing, again?
I would love an SSD that roughly the same price performance of a mechanical drive.
Newegg lists an out-of-stock OCZ drive (maybe the same one?) for $450 for 32GB. The cheapest laptop drive they have is $50 (60 GB). So the OCZ drive costs around 9x as much as a cheap HDD for performance 2-4 times better than the HDDs in the article, which gives 2-5x worse price/performance. (It also has 6-12x better performance/watt or 2-3x better performance/watt/dollar, but you didn't ask about that).
The problem is, it can't be all of those things. It can't even be most of those things. So pick the ones you need.
It looks to me like an on-the-market SSD already is all except the last one, and it's fairly close there.
But the new supplies (and container) still end up going just as fast, which means it's still taken just as much energy to accelerate them. Only in this case, the energy comes from slowing down the station, so either you have to speed it back up (just as energy-intensive and therefore expensive as accelerating the supplies beforehand) or it drops into a lower orbit because it's going slower now.
There's also the minor issue that paint chips going at orbital speeds can punch holes in things, so catching a cargo container at similar speeds would be rather hazardous to your wellbeing.
Instead of putting it in to standard orbit around ether the Earth or the moon can we put it into a orbit where it orbits both? That way it could be used as a spaceship traveling between the earth and the moon. It could be refueled and resupplied as it pass around earth. It could then carry passengers to a moonbase or whatever is up there.
Try standing on the side of the highway and handing a hamburger to someone who's driving past at 70 miles per hour.
If the ISS was orbiting the moon+earth, it would always be going fast enough to get all the way to the moon. Any resupply ship would have to be going the same speed to make contact, which would mean that the resupply ship would also have to be capable of making it all the way to the moon. Which means that things wouldn't be any cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
And honestly, at age 12 for girls, and 14 for boys there is no good reason to forcefully protect them from pornography at all... they're sexually mature at that time.
Physically mature, which has nothing to do with mental maturity, which is what matters. Probably the right age would be whenever they can recognize that fantasy != reality, and Santa Claus doesn't actually exist. That should be strong enough higher thinking skills to separate "some people do this" from "I should do this".
The problem with this though, it would discourage any laws that might be needed.
"What part of "Congress shall make no law [...]" do you not understand?"
Seriously, if they don't get in trouble for that, isn't it kind of an empty rule?
For example, the Patriot Act one could say violated the constitution, but in the few months after 9/11 it might have been needed (now, if it needed renewing is up for debate...)
Because when the shit hits the fan, it's very very important to install cameras in everyone's toilets for six months, so you can watch for the next load of shit that might approach your fan. And never mind that you already have (unwatched) cameras in the sewage pipes, or that piles of shit don't travel in packs like that.
but to penalize the making of bad laws is just stupidity.
Bad laws cause harm. Why should this be treated differently than when other professionals do stupid things that harm people, like an engineer designing a bridge without considering the effects of gravity?
Don't worry they will. e-gold was just smaller and didn't have good enough lawyers. Now that they've got a precedent set, the government will turn its attention towards paypal. The government can't stand to have any "unregulated" exchange of goods, services, or capital.
I've seen advice to never leave significant amounts of money in a paypal account (or occasionally even a bank account that paypal knows about), because they occasionally lock it or take it away and make this hard to fix. Does this mean that these stories and whatever prompted them will go away?
I think before we talk about other places, we should probably get the kinks out of everything by putting something on our own moon.
How about building cities that float in the oceans on earth first? We can already go there, and even do go there all the time. We can get back to land just as easily as we can get to the ocean. It's very fast to get there, weeks or hours depending on whether your city is large enough to have an airport. Going to the moon sounds nice, but we should make and follow through on plans to do something more practical first.
Perhaps it would make a good candidate for a "B-ark" scenario.
You get to literally live in a bubble.
Relying on third party technology is never going to provide the reliability or uptime required.
Even if the third party has way more experience and better hardware than you do?
If the corrugations are a little bit smaller than the separation distance, then *maybe* (intuitively it should work, but intuition doesn't work well at these scales). If they're larger, then it's pretty much just about making the effective surface area smaller. Since the article does mention surface area, I think it's probably the latter.
First of all, what does this certification crap prevent?
It shows that the people behind the domain now are the same as the people behind the domain when the certificate was purchased. Which should cost about 5 cents ("Install this crypto script to /verify.php on your server, and get a cert after we fetch it twice a week or so apart.") instead of $XX or $XXX per year.
There are strange quantum effects that mean that nothing can ever really be empty (I think this part is related to the uncertainty principle), but resonant cavities can be more empty than open space (because everything has a wavelength, and resonant cavities are very picky about what wavelengths they allow). So the stuff in the less empty area (outside your MEMS thingy) pushes harder than the smaller amount of stuff in the more empty area (between the parts of your MEMS thingy), and the parts all get stuck together.
My initial guess would be that it has something to do with literal surface area vs. active surface area, the parts that are hidden (inside the grooves) don't count.
I would think that that's based on the idea that Linux adoption is held down by the Windows monopoly (which Apple is supposed to be breaking), rather than by poor awareness and lack of polish.
Here's the danger of not identifying security fixes in your patch logs: If a security fix isn't clearly identified, then customers won't necessarily update it.
How well does this hold if the customers know that fixes don't get special tags for having known security implications? Or when there's an intermediary whose job is specifically to handle such things?
I thought all bugs were potential security holes?
See the Kerneltrap posting which includes a good part of the email discussion.
It looks like Linus' main concern is that publicizing a few bugs as "security" issues will act to hide other real security issues that weren't recognized at fix time; that any effort to publicize security issues will be so incomplete as to be misleading. And I see no mention of these concerns in the linked postings, almost as if the "full disclosure" people posting them are afraid to disclose the potential bugs (which would automatically be security bugs because of the topic) in their own methodologies.
The resolution of this issue is controlled by Ninth Circuit law. At least three cases â" MAI, Triad, and Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriffâ(TM)s Department, 447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006) â" hold that licensees of a computer program do not âoeownâ their copy of the program and therefore are not entitled to a section 117 defense. See MAI, 991 F.2d at 518 n.5; Triad 64 F.3d at 1333; Wall Data, 447 F.3d at 784-85. Wall Data provides a two-part test for determining whether the purchaser of a copy of a software program is a licensee or an owner: if the copyright holder (1) makes clear that it is granting a license to the copy of the software, and (2) imposes significant restrictions on the use or transfer of the copy, then the transaction is a license, not a sale, and the purchaser of the copy is a licensee, not an âoeownerâ within the meaning of section 117. Wall Data, 447 F.3d at 785.
But that only works if you own a copy of the software, which is why software these days is always "licensed, not sold" in the fine print -- so that that defense (and similar defenses for other activities) won't apply, and the seller can exercise greater control over their sheep^Wcustomers.
Yeah... plus that there's a reply to that comment pointing out that this suit was filed about two weeks ago, so waiting for the WoW case would mean they have time travel.
Of course under the doctrine of first sale it should be legit regardless
Of course stripping people of their first sale and ownership rights is exactly why we have EULAs and "licensed, not sold" stamped on everything...
See this other comment. The precedent they likely want to use is the WoW / Glider case that we discussed yesterday, if you don't follow the EULA then the copy-to-ram that's part of running the software is apparently a copyright violation.
That definition of insanity is a quote from Einstein. He's probably thought it through a little more than we would.
Hmm. Is it related at all to "God does not play dice." vs. "God not only plays dice, he sometimes throws them where you can't see them."?
You might wanna listen to one of the other voices in your head. ;)
But they're not as fun. :(
I hear one definition of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result each time.
Wait, so if I roll a bunch of dice, I should actually expect them to come up the same every time? Maybe those superstitions about lucky dice or lucky numbers are actually on to something...
I would love an SSD for r/w performance that blows a mechanical drive out of the water.
It looks like the OCZ drive does this.
I would love an SSD that doesn't use much power.
It looks like the OCZ drive does this, too.
I would love an SSD that's shockproof.
Isn't this a natural result of the "solid state" part of "solid state disk"?
I would love an SSD that runs cool.
Direct result of "doesn't use much power".
I would love an SSD that's silent.
Isn't this a natural result of the "solid state" thing, again?
I would love an SSD that roughly the same price performance of a mechanical drive.
Newegg lists an out-of-stock OCZ drive (maybe the same one?) for $450 for 32GB. The cheapest laptop drive they have is $50 (60 GB). So the OCZ drive costs around 9x as much as a cheap HDD for performance 2-4 times better than the HDDs in the article, which gives 2-5x worse price/performance. (It also has 6-12x better performance/watt or 2-3x better performance/watt/dollar, but you didn't ask about that).
The problem is, it can't be all of those things. It can't even be most of those things. So pick the ones you need.
It looks to me like an on-the-market SSD already is all except the last one, and it's fairly close there.
But the new supplies (and container) still end up going just as fast, which means it's still taken just as much energy to accelerate them. Only in this case, the energy comes from slowing down the station, so either you have to speed it back up (just as energy-intensive and therefore expensive as accelerating the supplies beforehand) or it drops into a lower orbit because it's going slower now.
There's also the minor issue that paint chips going at orbital speeds can punch holes in things, so catching a cargo container at similar speeds would be rather hazardous to your wellbeing.
Instead of putting it in to standard orbit around ether the Earth or the moon can we put it into a orbit where it orbits both? That way it could be used as a spaceship traveling between the earth and the moon. It could be refueled and resupplied as it pass around earth. It could then carry passengers to a moonbase or whatever is up there.
Try standing on the side of the highway and handing a hamburger to someone who's driving past at 70 miles per hour.
If the ISS was orbiting the moon+earth, it would always be going fast enough to get all the way to the moon. Any resupply ship would have to be going the same speed to make contact, which would mean that the resupply ship would also have to be capable of making it all the way to the moon. Which means that things wouldn't be any cheaper.