Each planet rotates a given speed based upon its distance from the sun, yet electrons do not follow that same calculation around the proton.
And that, of course, is for a very good reason: the electrons aren't in orbit around the nucleus in the same way that the Earth is in orbit around the Sun. If they were, electro-magnetic attraction would pull them into direct contact almost instantly.
So, what you're saying is, you distrust the FBI not because of what it does but simply because it's big. Do you also distrust the FDA for the same reason, or the VA?
How long do you think it takes? Tidal breakup ought to occur on a timescale of orbits, meaning a few days
I don't know, I'm not a physicist. I'd expect it to depend on a number of factors, such as tensile strength, size of the body, size of the primary and how far inside the limit it is. Of course, as a layman ICBW. That's why I made sure to point out that they might or might not break up.
There's more than one flavor of Linux, more than one Linux desktop, more than one Linux Window manager to use with each and so on. If one combination isn't right for you, for what you're doing or for your hardware, you can try another. You can't do that with Windows. That's what I meant.
OTOH, the breakup isn't exactly instant; it takes time. Who knows how long those moons have been that close or how close they might (or might not, of course) be to breaking up?
That's a barrier for barking huge spacecraft, but if you went slowly, and gradually kept up the acceleration, you'd get into space,
That's right, and the idea isn't even new. It was used back in '79 as the premise of the TV show Salvage 1. The ship, known as The Vulture, was built by a junk-yard operator to salvage junk left on the moon by Apollo.
All I can say is that I'm sorry it didn't work for you. It did for me, just fine. In fact, I'm still dual booting, but I'm using Fedora 8 now. But your story is a good example of one of the important strengths of Linux: different distroes do things differently, and if one doesn't work, another probably will.
No. It's just that some distroes are good for people new to Linux and some aren't. Personally, I use Fedora, but it's a bleeding edge distro and not for Aunt Millie. My older sister is considering dual booting Linux/2K, and I'd never set her up with Fedora. No, for her I'd use Ubuntu, because it's more similar in UI to what she's used to, and easier for her to maintain with minimal help from me. Before trying Linux again, do a little on-line research, find out what various distroes offer and which one is right for you.
Yes, Like RedHat does. However, this whole discussion, interesting as it is, is beside the point. I was trying to point out that this claimed "what you get for nothing is good for nothing" mindset is false.
No. With the exception of the E ring, all of Saturn's rings are within its Roche Limit. Tidal forces would prevent a new moon from forming that close just as they'd break up an existing one.
And it is not clear whether it was the FBI or the ISP who was at fault. Clearly someone was, and should be held responsible.
There, at least, I agree with you. As far as saying that incidents like this are common, I don't know if sysadmins are trying too hard to cooperate, or if the FBI requests aren't specific enough. For that matter, it might be that they're written by non-techs, who aren't sure of the right way to get what they want and only what they want.
As far as not knowing if they read the email or not, I think we can agree on that. I suspect that they didn't, simply from time and work-load constraints, but I'll not insist on it. If nothing else, there's always the delicious joy of snooping to keep people reading long after they've figured out that it's none of their business.
Yes, I think this "conversation" has gone about as far as is possible because there can be no meeting of the minds. No matter what I say, you spout left-wing, anti-Bush hatred and I'm trying tot be reasonable.
they'll notify everyone who was inadvertently snooped?
You seem to be assuming here that the FBI actually read all that email. I'm not saying that they didn't read any of it, but I see no reason to assume that they kept reading after they'd realized the error. Aside from your (understandable) mistrust of the FBI, do you have reason to think otherwise?
I'm actually surprised, however, that stealing "inside information" and using it to trade is not a violation.
It may be a violation of something, but not of SEC regulations on inside trading. You see, the idea behind banning inside trading is that insiders have a fiduciary duty to the stockholders. Using inside information for their own benefit, or for that of their friends/family is putting those interests ahead of those of the stockholders and thus ignoring their duty. In this case, the "hacker" wasn't an employee or officer of the corporation in question, so he had no responsibility to the stockholders. Thus, he wasn't guilty of inside trading as it is currently defined.
Not so. I've just looked at the story as given and see no obvious reason to disbelieve it. You, OTOH, seem to think that you must disbelieve any and everything the FBI says until it's been confirmed by an independent source. Of course, it might have to do with the fact that I've met a few FBI and DEA agents, and found them to be just like everybody else.
Once, years ago, I was working for a company that was doing large-scale reproductions for a big drug bust with both the FBI and DEA involved, and there were often agents from both agencies on-site for various reasons. One day, I had to take several cases of extra binders back to the local FBI office and it took them 45 minutes to figure out who was responsible for them and get them accepted. Frankly, I find it hard to imagine people like that asking for excessive information except by accident, because I doubt they'd know what to do with it. My guess is that either they miswrote the request, or the syaadmin misunderstood it, but I'll not insist on it.
Oh, I'm sure there must be a few out there, somewhere. However, all the shrill, hysterical voices abusing Bush seem to think that the Clintons are a pair of saints that can do no wrong.
But...but...but if they did that, they'd have to admit that Saint Bill Clinton did something they didn't like and that wouldn't fit in with their liberal mindset, now would it? Can't have anything like that happening, can we? After all we all know that the liberals do no wrong and the conservatives do nothing but wrong. Never mind the facts, that's what their liberal dogma says and that's what they have to believe!
Oh, you could probably sue if your email was involved but I doubt you could win. You'd have to make the jury believe that the ISP probably intended to give the FBI emails it neither had a right to have nor had asked for, and that's going to be a tough job. Juries tend to be understanding when it comes to simple mistakes.
Telling the ISP also what they'd do if they were telling the truth. And, "managing the story," as you call it, is just good public relations. You seem to have decided that no matter what happens, or what is uncovered, the FBI is at fault, and interpret everything from that POV. I, OTOH, see no reason, yet, to disbelieve them, but I'll look at any new evidence with more of an open mind than you appear to have on this subject.
Slashdot Mirror
And that, of course, is for a very good reason: the electrons aren't in orbit around the nucleus in the same way that the Earth is in orbit around the Sun. If they were, electro-magnetic attraction would pull them into direct contact almost instantly.
So, what you're saying is, you distrust the FBI not because of what it does but simply because it's big. Do you also distrust the FDA for the same reason, or the VA?
Maybe they can can get real technical about it and use ROT 39.
I don't know, I'm not a physicist. I'd expect it to depend on a number of factors, such as tensile strength, size of the body, size of the primary and how far inside the limit it is. Of course, as a layman ICBW. That's why I made sure to point out that they might or might not break up.
There's more than one flavor of Linux, more than one Linux desktop, more than one Linux Window manager to use with each and so on. If one combination isn't right for you, for what you're doing or for your hardware, you can try another. You can't do that with Windows. That's what I meant.
OTOH, the breakup isn't exactly instant; it takes time. Who knows how long those moons have been that close or how close they might (or might not, of course) be to breaking up?
That's right, and the idea isn't even new. It was used back in '79 as the premise of the TV show Salvage 1. The ship, known as The Vulture, was built by a junk-yard operator to salvage junk left on the moon by Apollo.
All I can say is that I'm sorry it didn't work for you. It did for me, just fine. In fact, I'm still dual booting, but I'm using Fedora 8 now. But your story is a good example of one of the important strengths of Linux: different distroes do things differently, and if one doesn't work, another probably will.
No. It's just that some distroes are good for people new to Linux and some aren't. Personally, I use Fedora, but it's a bleeding edge distro and not for Aunt Millie. My older sister is considering dual booting Linux/2K, and I'd never set her up with Fedora. No, for her I'd use Ubuntu, because it's more similar in UI to what she's used to, and easier for her to maintain with minimal help from me. Before trying Linux again, do a little on-line research, find out what various distroes offer and which one is right for you.
Exactly. That's why I said it would be quibbling.
You could give Linux away and sell support.
Yes, Like RedHat does. However, this whole discussion, interesting as it is, is beside the point. I was trying to point out that this claimed "what you get for nothing is good for nothing" mindset is false.
I could point out the price of compressed air, but that would be quibbling, wouldn't it?
money and value are not the same.
My point, exactly.
And that's how I got started in Linux, back before broadband was common. I went to a computer store, looked around and bought RedHat in a box.
"None sing hymns to breath, but oh, to be without it!"
No. With the exception of the E ring, all of Saturn's rings are within its Roche Limit. Tidal forces would prevent a new moon from forming that close just as they'd break up an existing one.
There, at least, I agree with you. As far as saying that incidents like this are common, I don't know if sysadmins are trying too hard to cooperate, or if the FBI requests aren't specific enough. For that matter, it might be that they're written by non-techs, who aren't sure of the right way to get what they want and only what they want.
As far as not knowing if they read the email or not, I think we can agree on that. I suspect that they didn't, simply from time and work-load constraints, but I'll not insist on it. If nothing else, there's always the delicious joy of snooping to keep people reading long after they've figured out that it's none of their business.
Yes, I think this "conversation" has gone about as far as is possible because there can be no meeting of the minds. No matter what I say, you spout left-wing, anti-Bush hatred and I'm trying tot be reasonable.
You seem to be assuming here that the FBI actually read all that email. I'm not saying that they didn't read any of it, but I see no reason to assume that they kept reading after they'd realized the error. Aside from your (understandable) mistrust of the FBI, do you have reason to think otherwise?
It may be a violation of something, but not of SEC regulations on inside trading. You see, the idea behind banning inside trading is that insiders have a fiduciary duty to the stockholders. Using inside information for their own benefit, or for that of their friends/family is putting those interests ahead of those of the stockholders and thus ignoring their duty. In this case, the "hacker" wasn't an employee or officer of the corporation in question, so he had no responsibility to the stockholders. Thus, he wasn't guilty of inside trading as it is currently defined.
Not so. I've just looked at the story as given and see no obvious reason to disbelieve it. You, OTOH, seem to think that you must disbelieve any and everything the FBI says until it's been confirmed by an independent source. Of course, it might have to do with the fact that I've met a few FBI and DEA agents, and found them to be just like everybody else.
Once, years ago, I was working for a company that was doing large-scale reproductions for a big drug bust with both the FBI and DEA involved, and there were often agents from both agencies on-site for various reasons. One day, I had to take several cases of extra binders back to the local FBI office and it took them 45 minutes to figure out who was responsible for them and get them accepted. Frankly, I find it hard to imagine people like that asking for excessive information except by accident, because I doubt they'd know what to do with it. My guess is that either they miswrote the request, or the syaadmin misunderstood it, but I'll not insist on it.
Oh, I'm sure there must be a few out there, somewhere. However, all the shrill, hysterical voices abusing Bush seem to think that the Clintons are a pair of saints that can do no wrong.
And you're trying to replace it with an assertion that they were acting improperly; an assertion, I might add, for which you offer no evidence.
But...but...but if they did that, they'd have to admit that Saint Bill Clinton did something they didn't like and that wouldn't fit in with their liberal mindset, now would it? Can't have anything like that happening, can we? After all we all know that the liberals do no wrong and the conservatives do nothing but wrong. Never mind the facts, that's what their liberal dogma says and that's what they have to believe!
Oh, you could probably sue if your email was involved but I doubt you could win. You'd have to make the jury believe that the ISP probably intended to give the FBI emails it neither had a right to have nor had asked for, and that's going to be a tough job. Juries tend to be understanding when it comes to simple mistakes.
Funny, it's never looked Bluish to me!
Telling the ISP also what they'd do if they were telling the truth. And, "managing the story," as you call it, is just good public relations. You seem to have decided that no matter what happens, or what is uncovered, the FBI is at fault, and interpret everything from that POV. I, OTOH, see no reason, yet, to disbelieve them, but I'll look at any new evidence with more of an open mind than you appear to have on this subject.