Your glance was a far too brief, then. The grsec kernel patches contain code to prevent buffer overflows and stack smashing by enforcing non-executable code pages and randomizing stacks. It also includes security features like ID/port randomization, restricting system call access in a chroot jail and of course, The ACL functionality.
Same thing here. I know legitimate email from my server is part of their 2bn figure. AOL may block 2 billion emails a day, but that includes a larger number of false positives than ever in light of their cable/dsl blockage months ago.
I can't even receive from AOL now as they've landed on a RBL I reference. Not because they're blocking cablemodems (which is their choice), but because their implimentation violates the SMTP RFC. The RBL blocks non-compliant servers, confirmed open relays and smtp agents confirmed vulnerable to exploit (via correlation between version # and security advisory).
AOL's mail server sends a 550 and disconnects you the instant you connect. 220 and 554 are the only allowed responses at that point, and immediate disconnection is not permitted; The server must wait for the client to send a QUIT before closing the connection. Since you're disconnected immediately, this behaviour also indirectly violates the requirement that the server always accept e-mail for postmaster.
For the SS cartoon to be free from a charge of being an unauthorized derivative work of the Strawberry Shortcake(R) property, it needs to actually be making a protected statement about SS, American Greetings, etc.
The real question to ask is not wether it's a parody, but wether the law defines restrictions on the content of parodies that PA is not in compliance with.
I hate to be pedantic, but the difference is rather signifigant.
parody - A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.
You'll notice that the definition itself doesn't specify any particular target or purpose other than comic effect and ridicule.
PA did imitate the style of the Strawberry Shortcake characters, as well as the style of American McGee's fairytale-turned-horror games.
They were specifically making fun of American McGee for rehashing Alice with another fairytale, and the parody included the Strawberry Shortcake characters for comedic effect.
it's too much of a pain to find the link to the current strip
You mean the "Latest Comic" link in the navigation area at the very top of the page? The one that's shaped like a tab and takes you to the current strip?
Someone makes a decision that it's cheaper to pay fines than it is to comply with law. Thats immoral. Someone makes a decision that it's better to user lawyers rather than competition to stay on top. That's immoral.
Then that someone is immoral. Not the company itself, which we're in agreement isn't a person at all. The fact is that calling a company evil is pointless. The people making the decisions could be called evil, perhaps.
It gets more complicated, though; at least for public companies. The people making the decisions are beholden to stockholders, who are themselves distanced from the company's actions. They expect a return on their investments, but on the whole don't care how the company goes about doing it.
So the people in charge do evil things and the stockholders either don't know, or their greed overcomes their sense of morality and they do nothing. Even when the stockholders know, unless the infraction is immensely atrocious, the number that protest is negligable. Perhaps stockholders are immoral on the whole.
We have every right to expect that companies act both morally AND financially responsibly.
You have no such right. The current system allows them to act as they do. Even their illegal actions are "permitted" because they pay comparatively affordable fines (if even that) when they get caught.
You can't alter human nature. The system must be designed to take it into account, as unpleasant as it is to acknowledge our faults. The system as it is doesn't do this, and the result is the current state of affairs. That's just the way it is.
If you feel so strongly and want things to change, you're going to have to get up off your ass do something about it.
That said, I fully expect you'll continue using Microsoft Windows on your home PC and patronizing other such "evil" companies every day while howling impotently here on/.
Companies are not moral or immoral. They're inherently amoral. A company is not a human being with emotions and a set of principles. A company doesn't seek to act selflessly or with malice. It's an artificial entity that exists for the sole purpose of making money.
A company seeks the most efficient path towards attaining that goal. The problem is that many of these efficient paths are what you would call "evil". For instance, the RIAA members corrupt governmental bodies rather than restructure their businesses. This is simply because it's cheaper and less risky to influence legislators than it is to undergo a major change in business model.
This will always be the case unless it somehow becomes too expensive and/or risky to buy the law. It's the same thing for everything from illegal dumping to litigous harrassment. Until the consequences of such abuse are made sufficiently severe, current behavior will continue.
There were two gas attacks during the second Battle of Ypres. The first was against the allied lines stationed there. They were forced to retreat, but were replaced by the 1st Canadian Division.
The Canadians were then hit with the second gas attack, but stood their ground. A chemist in their ranks came up with the countermeasure of pissing on some cloth and breathing through it to stop chlorine from getting into their lungs. Apparently, it scared the hell out of the attacking German force to see that what was supposed to be a lethal gas attack had only pissed the Canadians off. The loss of morale likely helped in their failure to take Ypres.
The Canadians were rather ferocious fighters back then.
That's not it. My mail server is on cable and has a bona-fide domain and accompanying MX record. It's secured and isn't an open relay, yet AOL's blocking it.
Following the instructions on the site linked in the smtp error produces no results. The page says that it will mail postmaster at your server about the results of a relay scan. They do nothing of the sort. My logs show that after a month and six scan requests, AOL has not yet even attempted to verify my relay status.
I expect this is simply a blanket measure which will be accompanied by the same level of response to enquiry as AOL's abuse department. Which is to say, none.
That page even says they use thrust by forcing plasma out the back.
It simply states that they use sci-fi technology to reduce the ship's mass while in flight so that very little thrust is required to provide a lot of acceleration.
It's actually rather silly. If they can manipulate their mass and use artificial gravity to counteract the effects of hundreds of Gs of acceleration on the ship, why aren't they using artificial gravity for propulsion directly?
They can only spin faster like this, and it has nothing to do with a change in mass. Rather, it has to do with stored kinetic energy and the seperate displacement of the mass being accelerated by that energy.
The skater has kinetic energy stored in his/her arms that is sufficient to rotate around a large circumference at a certain acceleration, discounting the obvious effects of friction (think of it as "circular velocity" if you have trouble understanding how any object rotating around a point is in fact accelerating). When the arms are pulled in, the energy is preserved and the acceleration remains the same. There is less distance to cover in each revolution however, so the skater starts spinning faster. Kinetic energy and acceleration are preserved.
If you were to alter the mass of a star ship accelerating in a straight line, you would certainly alter that acceleration. Whatever velocity it already has, however, it would keep.
Say a Star Trek ship were heading to a space station with an acceleration of 200 Gs provided by the impulse engines. It has built up a respectable velocity of 0.2 C relative to the station. One second out (approx. 60 km) they cut the engines, instantly reducing their acceleration from 200 Gs to zero. They've returned their mass to normal, though that wasn't even neccessary. Cutting the newtonian thrust would have stopped their acceleration regardless of their present mass.
Unfortunately, they're still moving at 0.2C. What's worse, the increased mass after the engines are cut is only going to make the inevitable collision that much more energetic. A nuke has nothing on a crash that hard.
Keep in mind that ships and stations are mostly hollow. The total mass of say, the Death Star, may not have been much more than that of a big asteroid.
You don't typically attach bus-powered devices to yourself. If something wears the wrong way or is defective from factory, you get a little more volume than you bargained for.
I agree with your conclusion, but not how you got there.
A computer connected to the public Internet is not a house, and has no surrounding property on which people can knowingly trespass in order to try a doorknob.
A closer analogy would be someone looking your house over from the street to see if there's a garage sale going on, or you've got business/sale signs up, etc... This isn't illegal, despite the fact that a would-be housebreaker could do the same thing to spot an open window.
Even then, the analogy is far from perfect. You're "blind" on the net and can't actually see anything, so you must resort to icmp pings and tcp connection requests like a form of sonar.
It gets even more complicated in that the detection medium is metered and your scans cost both you and your recipient. This is why I would consider a portscan rude. You're using up someone else's resources in a rather inefficient and selfish manner.
I think you mean: Should have 5% of the size of the parent star, not 5% bigger...
It doesn't work any way you slice it. He grossly underestimated how big stars are. Even at 5%, it wouldn't look good for Earth's status as a planet. We aren't even 1% the Sun's size, and we don't have even a tenth of one percent of the Sun's mass... and our Sun is rather small as far as stars go.
Only if you're not actually accessing the drive much (in which case elevator seeking like this would likely be a bad idea). Otherwise, it would probably cause less wear and tear as you're not constantly changing the acceleration of the actuator and subjecting it to stress. It's more likely that your spindle will seize up long before the actuator dies, though.
As for the spindle in the drive wearing out, it doesn't make much difference either way. The platters are spinning at all times anyway unless you specifically spin down the drive.
can someone correct me if other planets satellites can also be called "moons"
They are indeed called moons, in addition to natural satellites. Our moon is usually referred to as the Moon, or Luna. Both proper nouns and capitalized as such.
There are similar parallels with the Sun and the Earth. A star can be called a sun, but ours is the Sun, or Sol. You can call dirt "earth", but the giant ball of it we're on is the Earth, or Terra.
All three have numerous names in all sorts of languages, but those are the ones used most commonly in English-speaking nations.
Slashdot Mirror
Your glance was a far too brief, then. The grsec kernel patches contain code to prevent buffer overflows and stack smashing by enforcing non-executable code pages and randomizing stacks. It also includes security features like ID/port randomization, restricting system call access in a chroot jail and of course, The ACL functionality.
Same thing here. I know legitimate email from my server is part of their 2bn figure. AOL may block 2 billion emails a day, but that includes a larger number of false positives than ever in light of their cable/dsl blockage months ago.
I can't even receive from AOL now as they've landed on a RBL I reference. Not because they're blocking cablemodems (which is their choice), but because their implimentation violates the SMTP RFC. The RBL blocks non-compliant servers, confirmed open relays and smtp agents confirmed vulnerable to exploit (via correlation between version # and security advisory).
AOL's mail server sends a 550 and disconnects you the instant you connect. 220 and 554 are the only allowed responses at that point, and immediate disconnection is not permitted; The server must wait for the client to send a QUIT before closing the connection.
Since you're disconnected immediately, this behaviour also indirectly violates the requirement that the server always accept e-mail for postmaster.
Hmm... This seems all too familiar.
The "target" is irrelevent, at least by the definition of the word. It simply has to be for purposes of comedic effect or ridicule.
Check it out.
For the SS cartoon to be free from a charge of being an unauthorized derivative work of the Strawberry Shortcake(R) property, it needs to actually be making a protected statement about SS, American Greetings, etc.
Actually, the definition of the word "parody" includes no such stipulation. The comic's a parody, by definition.
The real question to ask is not wether it's a parody, but wether the law defines restrictions on the content of parodies that PA is not in compliance with.
I hate to be pedantic, but the difference is rather signifigant.
parody - A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.
You'll notice that the definition itself doesn't specify any particular target or purpose other than comic effect and ridicule.
PA did imitate the style of the Strawberry Shortcake characters, as well as the style of American McGee's fairytale-turned-horror games.
They were specifically making fun of American McGee for rehashing Alice with another fairytale, and the parody included the Strawberry Shortcake characters for comedic effect.
Their maligned comic is a parody, by definition.
it's too much of a pain to find the link to the current strip
You mean the "Latest Comic" link in the navigation area at the very top of the page? The one that's shaped like a tab and takes you to the current strip?
If they take their helmets off, there'll be nothing A about the RS.
Someone makes a decision that it's cheaper to pay fines than it is to comply with law. Thats immoral. Someone makes a decision that it's better to user lawyers rather than competition to stay on top. That's immoral.
/.
Then that someone is immoral. Not the company itself, which we're in agreement isn't a person at all. The fact is that calling a company evil is pointless. The people making the decisions could be called evil, perhaps.
It gets more complicated, though; at least for public companies. The people making the decisions are beholden to stockholders, who are themselves distanced from the company's actions. They expect a return on their investments, but on the whole don't care how the company goes about doing it.
So the people in charge do evil things and the stockholders either don't know, or their greed overcomes their sense of morality and they do nothing. Even when the stockholders know, unless the infraction is immensely atrocious, the number that protest is negligable. Perhaps stockholders are immoral on the whole.
We have every right to expect that companies act both morally AND financially responsibly.
You have no such right. The current system allows them to act as they do. Even their illegal actions are "permitted" because they pay comparatively affordable fines (if even that) when they get caught.
You can't alter human nature. The system must be designed to take it into account, as unpleasant as it is to acknowledge our faults. The system as it is doesn't do this, and the result is the current state of affairs. That's just the way it is.
If you feel so strongly and want things to change, you're going to have to get up off your ass do something about it.
That said, I fully expect you'll continue using Microsoft Windows on your home PC and patronizing other such "evil" companies every day while howling impotently here on
Companies are not moral or immoral. They're inherently amoral. A company is not a human being with emotions and a set of principles. A company doesn't seek to act selflessly or with malice. It's an artificial entity that exists for the sole purpose of making money.
A company seeks the most efficient path towards attaining that goal. The problem is that many of these efficient paths are what you would call "evil". For instance, the RIAA members corrupt governmental bodies rather than restructure their businesses. This is simply because it's cheaper and less risky to influence legislators than it is to undergo a major change in business model.
This will always be the case unless it somehow becomes too expensive and/or risky to buy the law. It's the same thing for everything from illegal dumping to litigous harrassment. Until the consequences of such abuse are made sufficiently severe, current behavior will continue.
shareholders of Exxon are investing in an oil business, and didn't make the decision to stick Alaska with the cleanup bill, for instance.
Actually, some shareholders did. Who do you think makes up the board that made the decision?
Primary use vs. intended use... That's quite insightful, and very much in keeping with the same arguments those very same lawyers make.
It's posts like this that make me wish scores greater than 5 were possible.
It's not that flexible. You're still going to need shocks on your car.
There were two gas attacks during the second Battle of Ypres. The first was against the allied lines stationed there. They were forced to retreat, but were replaced by the 1st Canadian Division.
The Canadians were then hit with the second gas attack, but stood their ground. A chemist in their ranks came up with the countermeasure of pissing on some cloth and breathing through it to stop chlorine from getting into their lungs. Apparently, it scared the hell out of the attacking German force to see that what was supposed to be a lethal gas attack had only pissed the Canadians off. The loss of morale likely helped in their failure to take Ypres.
The Canadians were rather ferocious fighters back then.
Also if i'm not mistaken, feel free to correct me but didn't Novell run ontop of dos?
It did and as of Netware 6, still does.
That's not it. My mail server is on cable and has a bona-fide domain and accompanying MX record. It's secured and isn't an open relay, yet AOL's blocking it.
Following the instructions on the site linked in the smtp error produces no results. The page says that it will mail postmaster at your server about the results of a relay scan. They do nothing of the sort. My logs show that after a month and six scan requests, AOL has not yet even attempted to verify my relay status.
I expect this is simply a blanket measure which will be accompanied by the same level of response to enquiry as AOL's abuse department. Which is to say, none.
That page even says they use thrust by forcing plasma out the back.
It simply states that they use sci-fi technology to reduce the ship's mass while in flight so that very little thrust is required to provide a lot of acceleration.
It's actually rather silly. If they can manipulate their mass and use artificial gravity to counteract the effects of hundreds of Gs of acceleration on the ship, why aren't they using artificial gravity for propulsion directly?
Just like skaters pulling in their arms go faster
They can only spin faster like this, and it has nothing to do with a change in mass. Rather, it has to do with stored kinetic energy and the seperate displacement of the mass being accelerated by that energy.
The skater has kinetic energy stored in his/her arms that is sufficient to rotate around a large circumference at a certain acceleration, discounting the obvious effects of friction (think of it as "circular velocity" if you have trouble understanding how any object rotating around a point is in fact accelerating). When the arms are pulled in, the energy is preserved and the acceleration remains the same. There is less distance to cover in each revolution however, so the skater starts spinning faster. Kinetic energy and acceleration are preserved.
If you were to alter the mass of a star ship accelerating in a straight line, you would certainly alter that acceleration. Whatever velocity it already has, however, it would keep.
Say a Star Trek ship were heading to a space station with an acceleration of 200 Gs provided by the impulse engines. It has built up a respectable velocity of 0.2 C relative to the station. One second out (approx. 60 km) they cut the engines, instantly reducing their acceleration from 200 Gs to zero. They've returned their mass to normal, though that wasn't even neccessary. Cutting the newtonian thrust would have stopped their acceleration regardless of their present mass.
Unfortunately, they're still moving at 0.2C. What's worse, the increased mass after the engines are cut is only going to make the inevitable collision that much more energetic. A nuke has nothing on a crash that hard.
Keep in mind that ships and stations are mostly hollow. The total mass of say, the Death Star, may not have been much more than that of a big asteroid.
You don't typically attach bus-powered devices to yourself. If something wears the wrong way or is defective from factory, you get a little more volume than you bargained for.
I agree with your conclusion, but not how you got there.
A computer connected to the public Internet is not a house, and has no surrounding property on which people can knowingly trespass in order to try a doorknob.
A closer analogy would be someone looking your house over from the street to see if there's a garage sale going on, or you've got business/sale signs up, etc...
This isn't illegal, despite the fact that a would-be housebreaker could do the same thing to spot an open window.
Even then, the analogy is far from perfect. You're "blind" on the net and can't actually see anything, so you must resort to icmp pings and tcp connection requests like a form of sonar.
It gets even more complicated in that the detection medium is metered and your scans cost both you and your recipient. This is why I would consider a portscan rude. You're using up someone else's resources in a rather inefficient and selfish manner.
I think you mean: Should have 5% of the size of the parent star, not 5% bigger...
It doesn't work any way you slice it. He grossly underestimated how big stars are.
Even at 5%, it wouldn't look good for Earth's status as a planet. We aren't even 1% the Sun's size, and we don't have even a tenth of one percent of the Sun's mass... and our Sun is rather small as far as stars go.
Only if you're not actually accessing the drive much (in which case elevator seeking like this would likely be a bad idea). Otherwise, it would probably cause less wear and tear as you're not constantly changing the acceleration of the actuator and subjecting it to stress. It's more likely that your spindle will seize up long before the actuator dies, though.
As for the spindle in the drive wearing out, it doesn't make much difference either way. The platters are spinning at all times anyway unless you specifically spin down the drive.
can someone correct me if other planets satellites can also be called "moons"
:)
They are indeed called moons, in addition to natural satellites. Our moon is usually referred to as the Moon, or Luna. Both proper nouns and capitalized as such.
There are similar parallels with the Sun and the Earth. A star can be called a sun, but ours is the Sun, or Sol. You can call dirt "earth", but the giant ball of it we're on is the Earth, or Terra.
All three have numerous names in all sorts of languages, but those are the ones used most commonly in English-speaking nations.
Consider yourself corrected.
IF you've run the benchmark, post your scores here, and we'll all compare.
Or you could just go directly to the futuremark forums instead.