Will it finally mean you can have a meaningful conversation with a Mac user which does not include chanting the mantra about how easy the Mac is to use because it only has one button on the mouse?
And I suspect a failure of any ONE of these measures would have the same effect. Safe the reactor and THEN figure out why it failed.
Its pretty clear from this thread that everyone thinks the state of the art in monitoring and control are much further advanced than is actually the fact.
Too much TV.
The simple fact is that loss of data, anomalous data, out of range data, disagreeing data, ALL constitute valid reasons to shut down the reactor. This is the safe and conservative thing to do. Its the right thing to do.
This is why we have an electrical GRID. We can afford to be CAREFUL and shutdown a reactor rather than take risks with ever more complex and failure prone software.
I'm very glad the folks on this thread are not programming reactor management systems. We would have a Three Mile Island indecent every two weeks. They need to go back to writing their little visual basic toys and leave the critical stuff to adults.
Rats chewing on a wire could have been the cause. I don't care. Intelligent adults want the system put into a safe condition when things are out of line. You can always determine the problem and restart the reactor if you shut it down in time.
There is no such thing as a perfect system. But this one comes pretty close.
The System FAILED. It is programmed to SAFE the reactor when shit happens.
Without its sensors it had no choice but to assume worse case and scram the reactor.
It did it the right way. It did it the way it was programmed to do it.
What would you have it do to determine why it is no longer getting critical data? Send out a droid to check the cat5 cables? Its a frikin computer in a rack, not R2D2.
It worked the way it was supposed to.
Take a step back and let the big boys handle the reactor, Please.
There is two ways to get this level of zoom to work:
1) have the pixels in the first place 2) having more pixels in the first place.
Anything else is a fundamental violation of the laws of physics and math. You simply can not fake what you don't have without it being exactly that: a fake. There is no storage printing technology which could accomplish this level of zooming, and they carefully do not say that this is actually a continuous zoom of a picture on a stamp.
Deep Zoom works by letting you meld several images in such a way as pretend its one image.
Basically, its a con-job of transitioning several different images, where one is a re-photograph of sub portion of the original.
The implication of the article is that this is all one image containing a nearly infinite level of detail, which it most emphatically is NOT.
The author is probably equally impressed by street corner magic tricks.
Quoting article: "We believe we have identified a number of the basic building blocks that the brain uses to represent meaning. These building blocks could be used to predict patterns for any concrete noun..."
The implications of building blocks would suggest that the french word for "Desk" (bureau) would elicit the same response as the english word for "Desk", instead of some governmental unit.
That would be useful, (once we get cheap portable MRI hats).
However I doubt these building blocks are anywhere near that generic due to the excess emotional baggage that people associate with words. I suppose it might be able to detect the presence of such baggage even if it could not decipher it.
> Terrorist tactics are not a matter of national security,
That has to be one of the stupidest statements in this entire thread.
Some one hits a "US government website" on terrorism (read: honeypot) designed to attract exactly this kind of terrorist explorer and you decide its no a matter of national security.
> The rights granted to owners of a copy, but not > the copyright, to dispose of a copy by sale or > otherwise are established. Rental, leasing and > loaning are implicit in the "or otherwise"
Sorry Mr. beatdown
The Record Rental Amendment of 1984 and the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990 both amended Section 109 to prevent all owners of software copies or phonorecords, except non-profit educational institutions or non-profit libraries, to dispose of said copies through the acts of rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending unless authorized by the owners of the copyright.
You've got it exactly backwards. "Or Otherwise" is conditioned to explicitly EXCLUDES rental.
Actually you are allowed to sell/transfer your Microsoft license. It was only with Vista that they tried to prevent this, and I think they have pretty well backed off of that.
I donated a lot of Win2k licenses to schools (disks, certs, and all) when we moved the company to Linux. I regret the damage I did to those kids tho....:-(
The ruling is important because it calls into question the whole concept of a Non Transferable license. The court found that âoefirst saleâ doctrine of copyright law did apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
If this hold, it will largely eliminate the non-transferable license in software.
And why shouldn't it? As long as the original owner retains no copy, selling an unused license simply keeps that copy under maintenance (maintenance charges frequently exceed sales revenue) and keeps the money flowing to the authors.
Nontransferable licenses are usually attempted by companies that have some sort of a near monopoly lock, so that not only do they gain from a new sale, they also gain from maintenance charges. If there are multiple vendors of equivalent software you really can't get away with nontransferable clauses.
As a software author, I'd gladly accept continued maintenance fees instead of new sales revenue. If my customers know that unused licenses have residual value when their projects are completed its good for me, and good for them. They buy extra licenses to handle the surge effort of development, and retain a few licenses for maintenance.
Still multiple resets. Yes, torrents do complete, but much more slowly than on my neighbors ASDL which has half the speed rating of my comcast connection.
This is not a case of a judge gratuitously injecting himself into computer security. This situation arose when Indians sued for royalties held in the Indian Land Trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is part of the Interior Department. During the suit, it turned out that the problem was not just that they weren't getting paid, but that BIA's record-keeping was woefully inadequate.
And who's problem was the in-adequate record keeping? After all, with over 86% of BIA Employees being Native American, and the agency being largely a welfare establishment it seems highly likely that there was more than a little social engineering going on, rather than simple technical inadequacy.
Source of demographics:http://www.bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/agency.php?code=IN06&q=scores_subcomponent
> Even the most "uber secure" area can be hacked > with varying degrees of effort, either externally > or internally. This just opens a vector that was > once unopened.
Excuse me, Did you RTFA?
How is the Bureau of Indian Affairs in need of security in excess of the Defense Department, Congress, the IRS, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
I bet you were around here dumping on the Federal Government response to Katrina too! You can't have it both ways.
You can not have efficient and responsive government agencies when you relegate them to 1960s era technology.
> These networks should be segregated from the > unwashed internet as there is no data security or > guarantees of anything except being hacked.
Of course the Judge probably has internet access. Somehow it seems ok for a Judges court documents to be compromised, but
All of this could have been solved with a few $59 dollar routers between these offices and the wide woolly world of the web.
Nothing is totally unhackable.
But in this case some judge "deemed that Indian trust accounts were vulnerable to computer hackers" and that justified a return to the 1960's. A judge "deemed"!!!
Why wasn't executive privileged invoked and the judge told to go to hell?
None of this is embodied in "the first section of the US constitution".
Your post (grandparent of this post) was just wrong on the facts with regard to the structure of the constitution which suggested a great deal of misconceptions about the document.
The US Bill of Rights (called a Bill: because it was introduced as an act of congress to amend the constitution) was an afterthought, demanded by the people and the states as a condition of ratifying the constitution, in large part due to the ineffectiveness of the so called English Bill of Rights 1689.
That document was as much concerned with succession to the throne as it was the rights of the people, and the rights of parliament were really its main focus.
In any event much of was moot before the US constitution was drafted.
Further, there are very few rights in either document that are directly related to specific elements in the opposite document: Basically just three (right to bear arms, trial by jury, and cruel and unusual punishment).
There is no right in the English Bill of Rights to free speech/press, privacy, and certainly nothing that comes close to the scope and audacity of the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution.
The US constitution was also influenced by French history, law, and government. Yet you claim a British heritage exclusively.
In fact, ratification of the Constitution was in doubt due to the observation of the people that there were no protections of individual rights in the document. Promises of amendments to correct this issue were finally agreed to by states in order to get the constitution passed.
Only then were people's rights enshrined in in the first 10 amendments, the most important of which and the least observed being Amendment 10:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In fact, that single amendment would have sufficed and we would be better off with just that single amendment. Too many people believe the constitution enumerates our rights. This is totally backward. The constitution Limits Government. Something sadly lacking in Britain.
Slashdot Mirror
Will it finally mean you can have a meaningful conversation with a Mac user which does not include chanting the mantra about how easy the Mac is to use because it only has one button on the mouse?
And I suspect a failure of any ONE of these measures would have the same effect. Safe the reactor and THEN figure out why it failed.
Its pretty clear from this thread that everyone thinks the state of the art in monitoring and control are much further advanced than is actually the fact.
Too much TV.
The simple fact is that loss of data, anomalous data, out of range data, disagreeing data, ALL constitute valid reasons to shut down the reactor. This is the safe and conservative thing to do. Its the right thing to do.
This is why we have an electrical GRID. We can afford to be CAREFUL and shutdown a reactor rather than take risks with ever more complex and failure prone software.
I'm very glad the folks on this thread are not programming reactor management systems. We would have a Three Mile Island indecent every two weeks. They need to go back to writing their little visual basic toys and leave the critical stuff to adults.
No data = data out of range.
Data anomaly = shutdown.
Rats chewing on a wire could have been the cause. I don't care. Intelligent adults want the system put into a safe condition when things are out of line. You can always determine the problem and restart the reactor if you shut it down in time.
There is no such thing as a perfect system. But this one comes pretty close.
What part of FAIL SAFE don't you understand?
The System FAILED. It is programmed to SAFE the reactor when shit happens.
Without its sensors it had no choice but to assume worse case and scram the reactor.
It did it the right way. It did it the way it was programmed to do it.
What would you have it do to determine why it is no longer getting critical data? Send out a droid to check the cat5 cables? Its a frikin computer in a rack, not R2D2.
It worked the way it was supposed to.
Take a step back and let the big boys handle the reactor, Please.
There is two ways to get this level of zoom to work:
1) have the pixels in the first place
2) having more pixels in the first place.
Anything else is a fundamental violation of the laws of physics and math. You simply can not fake what you don't have without it being exactly that: a fake. There is no storage printing technology which could accomplish this level of zooming, and they carefully do not say that this is actually a continuous zoom of a picture on a stamp.
Deep Zoom works by letting you meld several images in such a way as pretend its one image.
Basically, its a con-job of transitioning several different images, where one is a re-photograph of sub portion of the original.
The implication of the article is that this is all one image containing a nearly infinite level of detail, which it most emphatically is NOT.
The author is probably equally impressed by street corner magic tricks.
Ohhhh, riiiight. This will help: http://www.ilovebonnie.net/tinfoil-hat.jpg
Quoting article:
"We believe we have identified a number of the basic building blocks that the brain uses to represent meaning. These building blocks could be used to predict patterns for any concrete noun..."
The implications of building blocks would suggest that the french word for "Desk" (bureau) would elicit the same response as the english word for "Desk", instead of some governmental unit.
That would be useful, (once we get cheap portable MRI hats).
However I doubt these building blocks are anywhere near that generic due to the excess emotional baggage that people associate with words. I suppose it might be able to detect the presence of such baggage even if it could not decipher it.
It is legal.
Did you ever stop to think it might be a honeypot?
> Terrorist tactics are not a matter of national security,
That has to be one of the stupidest statements in this entire thread.
Some one hits a "US government website" on terrorism (read: honeypot) designed to attract exactly this kind of terrorist explorer and you decide its no a matter of national security.
Until you know EXACTLY what he was downloading I don't think you are in a position to say that.
For instance, TFA indicates he was downloading something from a US Government website on Terrorism.
Can you spell HONEYPOT?
> While this does require physical access, running
> something as root before login is still incredibly
> stupid.
Every Unix/Linux system runs "something as root" before login. You should look at "top" some time and see what pid number 1 is and who ran it.
Check the definitions in the bill.
This discussion was about a boat building video. Videos are most definitely NOT fair game for rental.
Go down to your Blockbuster and ask them. They pay a special licensing fee for the right to rent them.
Read the back of and Movie on DVD.
Doh! I assumed it was an abbreviation. My bad.
No, you can't rely on that.
IPs can be faked, and trying to track down a specific IP across uncooperative ISPs and political borders is a fools errand.
> The rights granted to owners of a copy, but not
> the copyright, to dispose of a copy by sale or
> otherwise are established. Rental, leasing and
> loaning are implicit in the "or otherwise"
Sorry Mr. beatdown
The Record Rental Amendment of 1984 and the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990 both amended Section 109 to prevent all owners of software copies or phonorecords, except non-profit educational institutions or non-profit libraries, to dispose of said copies through the acts of rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending unless authorized by the owners of the copyright.
You've got it exactly backwards. "Or Otherwise" is conditioned to explicitly EXCLUDES rental.
Actually you are allowed to sell/transfer your Microsoft license. It was only with Vista that they tried to prevent this, and I think they have pretty well backed off of that.
:-(
I donated a lot of Win2k licenses to schools (disks, certs, and all) when we moved the company to Linux. I regret the damage I did to those kids tho....
Not much, which is why this is seldom seen in that market. However, I do pay yearly maintenance fees on Turbotax....
That act is specifically prohibited by the Copyright act. (At your discretion of course).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
The ruling is important because it calls into question the whole concept of a Non Transferable license. The court found that âoefirst saleâ doctrine of copyright law did apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
If this hold, it will largely eliminate the non-transferable license in software.
And why shouldn't it? As long as the original owner retains no copy, selling an unused license simply keeps that copy under maintenance (maintenance charges frequently exceed sales revenue) and keeps the money flowing to the authors.
Nontransferable licenses are usually attempted by companies that have some sort of a near monopoly lock, so that not only do they gain from a new sale, they also gain from maintenance charges. If there are multiple vendors of equivalent software you really can't get away with nontransferable clauses.
As a software author, I'd gladly accept continued maintenance fees instead of new sales revenue. If my customers know that unused licenses have residual value when their projects are completed its good for me, and good for them. They buy extra licenses to handle the surge effort of development, and retain a few licenses for maintenance.
Well Comcast is still resetting bittorent for me.
Tested this morning with http://broadband.mpi-sws.mpg.de/transparency/bttest.php
Still multiple resets. Yes, torrents do complete, but much more slowly than on my neighbors ASDL which has half the speed rating of my comcast connection.
So they lie.
And who's problem was the in-adequate record keeping? After all, with over 86% of BIA Employees being Native American, and the agency being largely a welfare establishment it seems highly likely that there was more than a little social engineering going on, rather than simple technical inadequacy.This is not a case of a judge gratuitously injecting himself into computer security.
This situation arose when Indians sued for royalties held in the Indian Land Trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is part of the Interior Department. During the suit, it turned out that the problem was not just that they weren't getting paid, but that BIA's record-keeping was woefully inadequate.
Source of demographics:http://www.bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/agency.php?code=IN06&q=scores_subcomponent
> Even the most "uber secure" area can be hacked
> with varying degrees of effort, either externally
> or internally. This just opens a vector that was
> once unopened.
Excuse me, Did you RTFA?
How is the Bureau of Indian Affairs in need of security in excess of the Defense Department, Congress, the IRS, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
I bet you were around here dumping on the Federal Government response to Katrina too! You can't have it both ways.
You can not have efficient and responsive government agencies when you relegate them to 1960s era technology.
> These networks should be segregated from the
> unwashed internet as there is no data security or
> guarantees of anything except being hacked.
Of course the Judge probably has internet access. Somehow it seems ok for a Judges court documents to be compromised, but
All of this could have been solved with a few $59 dollar routers between these offices and the wide woolly world of the web.
Nothing is totally unhackable.
But in this case some judge "deemed that Indian trust accounts were vulnerable to computer hackers" and that justified a return to the 1960's. A judge "deemed"!!!
Why wasn't executive privileged invoked and the judge told to go to hell?
None of this is embodied in "the first section of the US constitution".
Your post (grandparent of this post) was just wrong on the facts with regard to the structure of the constitution which suggested a great deal of misconceptions about the document.
The US Bill of Rights (called a Bill: because it was introduced as an act of congress to amend the constitution) was an afterthought, demanded by the people and the states as a condition of ratifying the constitution, in large part due to the ineffectiveness of the so called English Bill of Rights 1689.
That document was as much concerned with succession to the throne as it was the rights of the people, and the rights of parliament were really its main focus.
In any event much of was moot before the US constitution was drafted.
Further, there are very few rights in either document that are directly related to specific elements in the opposite document: Basically just three (right to bear arms, trial by jury, and cruel and unusual punishment).
There is no right in the English Bill of Rights to free speech/press, privacy, and certainly nothing that comes close to the scope and audacity of the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution.
The US constitution was also influenced by French history, law, and government. Yet you claim a British heritage exclusively.
Oh, right, Article 10 and 11.
Really worked for this guy, right?
> Try and remember that first section of US
> constitution is based on English Bill or Rights
Nope. Sorry. Not even close.
The first section (Article 1) of the constitution deals with the structure of government.
Refresher course on line here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
In fact, ratification of the Constitution was in doubt due to the observation of the people that there were no protections of individual rights in the document. Promises of amendments to correct this issue were finally agreed to by states in order to get the constitution passed.
Only then were people's rights enshrined in in the first 10 amendments, the most important of which and the least observed being Amendment 10:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In fact, that single amendment would have sufficed and we would be better off with just that single amendment. Too many people believe the constitution enumerates our rights. This is totally backward. The constitution Limits Government. Something sadly lacking in Britain.