Which would be just a load of unusable overhead. A laser designed for science is usually not really useful for blowing up things. What it can be useful for is rather to pinpoint and manipulate things on atomic scale. Another use can be long-distance precision measurements, like sending a pulse to Jupiter and measure the distance with precision. (which probably would be useless anyway since the momentarily thickness of the clouds on Jupiter will have an impact on the measurement).
One must question if it really is a feasible weapon for a bomber as the B1-B is. You probably want to carry something that packs a lot more punch there.
Lasers also tends to lose their power over distance - especially in atmosphere where there are a lot of molecules that are dissipating the energy. High-power lasers are actually suffering more than the plain laser pointers since the high-power lasers also excite the molecules found in the path and that draws energy. This means that a powerful laser beam sent through air can actually be seen by the naked eye - at least when it's dark while a low-power beam is invisible.
And I actually think that an attack aircraft should benefit more from a beam weapon than a bomber. But beam weapons may be of use on other aircraft to take care of incoming missiles - but that will require a relatively light-weight weapon sufficient to take out missiles and this laser is still not very useful for that.
Oh - that's the humor of the whole story - if the system used weren't secure enough then not only he could have gained from this transaction but also a lot of others that didn't float up above the average noise level.
Anyway - see this as a lesson to either release your information fast enough to avoid anyone to take advantage or to improve the security of your data. Preferably both.
The catch with inside affairs is that at some point "knowledge" becomes "rumor" and it couldn't be certain that the data he gained access was the real deal or not. Too many junk mails about stock inflation/deflation are around to allow for anything to be certain.
Natural selection has a great deal of randomness involved. Some features that occurs may be completely irrelevant, which means that they neither improve nor decrease the ability to survive. In other cases a change may be balanced out by another so the survival rate is still the same as before.
This means that it's only over a long time that survivability and evolutionary changes can play a role. OK, in the software world a long time is measured in the scale of minutes to a few years - but in the matter of living things like humans it's best measured in generations. A change that occurred many generations ago induced a gene that causes the disorder Hemochromatosis. This was a useful gene for people when the food was very low in iron, but today we have food with a lot of iron and therefore this gene is a bad thing. However in this case the treatment is very simple compared to many other diseases and disorders.
The same goes for computer programs - a feature that is essential for the usability in one generation can be a really big problem in the upcoming generations. It may also be that a feature may be useful in the short term, like the ability to call out warnings. Unfortunately when humans are involved warnings tends to lose their edge over time, but the computer software will not understand this. So in that perspective all those warnings that Vista bloats us with are useless.
As for the canoe example - the canoes used by the pacific islanders are completely different from canoes for river use. And they have the sibling the Kayak, which is very useful for the environment where it originated, but it's not so useful when it comes to long-distance travel. Differences in material used is also important. The materials used by a Kayak may not survive for long close to the equator (it may draw sharks) while it is the best solution for arctic environments.
So the conclusion is that there is no perfect canoe - it depends very much on where it is used, and sometimes an insignificant difference between two individuals may be irrelevant in any other environment than the precise home environment of the specific canoe where it may prove a very useful feature.
Same goes for humans. In central Africa people tends to have large noses while in arctic regions the nose is small. The reason is that a large nose can allow for more heat to escape while a person is breathing while a small one is useful for conserving the heat.
One factor is: Do Microsoft really need Yahoo? Maybe only as a bat against Google.
For search engines they have already acquired Fast, so they are in the search business.
In my opinion they are probably out to diminish the smaller actors in online advertising to gain more clients on their own advertisement service before going for Google. That either by buying or by creating confusion. It is possible that they see that there is an end to the incomes generated by Windows and Office and that they need a new area where they can put their leverage in. And don't expect it to go soft - they will do the bandwagon thing by first eliminate the competition and then raise the prices to pay off the investment.
Combine this with all the FUD they are spreading and chairs thrown and you get a M$-blue future where all needs DirectX and Silverlight on their computer to read mail, search the web or browse/.
Open Source is used in businesses in packages that are well-known and known to be stable. They require little maintenance and has little or no support cost. Examples are the Apache web server, Eclipse development environment and BIND.
Most information about how to tweak these are found quickly by using Google, while many commercial packages are cumbersome and also sometimes requires configuration in many places/modules using a variety of user interfaces to be both safe and stable.
What often happens is that when a support issue actually occurs it can cost a lot of time to straighten out while trying to contact a vendor but it is likely already fixed in an open source package one way or another. What many analysts fails to see is that each support case can create a downtime that has an impact on both support personnel and a lot of people depending on the service.
"The time to fix" factor is seldom seen in an analysis like this.
There are of course also open source packages that doesn't work as well, but the author is often aware of that and has probably inserted a huge disclaimer stating the limitations. And how many times have you seen a limitation declaration in a commercial package? (Unless of course it's a liability limitation).
that more and more people are using IP telephony as their landline.
What will happen if that service is unavailable for an innocent that needs emergency service? Who is to blame then?
I for sure would want to hold someone personally responsible. The internet connection is more than just an amusement that can be turned off today - it has changed into something much more important.
So cutting off people shall be an alternative that really has to be considered a last resort.
Just avoid being out in criminal action when the weather is clear - wait for a rainy overcast day and you are clear from most surveillance - even the local cameras can't see much in heavy rain.
While we try to complain about the lack of freedom in many countries like China, Cuba or Myanmar the reality is that we are giving up our freedom bit by bit just because it's motivated by "war against terrorism" or "environmental concerns".
I like the approach of the guy driving a huge V8 pickup just because he likes stormy weather - he is a windsurfer!
That's reasonable - and if I'm going for the full speed during low-traffic period like five in the morning, then the ISP shouldn't have much problem with that. What is reasonable is to set up variable priority for different protocols. FTP and HTTP may get a lower priority but only fall into effect if there is other traffic with higher priority like VoIP and there is a problem with the bandwidth.
But throttling the speed just because they CAN is not the way to go. It's just a way to ask for upset users.
from a work of art to the artist is in the first few years. After that the income drops off, but may come up again whan some nostalgic event happens.
A more reasonable limitation would be that the copyright should be held as long as an artist is alive, or five years (whichever is the longer). If the artist dies within five years the copyright shall fall on next of kin.
Not too bad to start with Java, but it's not really close to the hardware at all.
A starting language shall not be too unforgiving, and there is a small advantage with Java, and it is that it's very C-like. At least as long as you don't use a lot of built-in classes. If a student is limited to the "java.lang" package and isn't allowed to use anything else from the Java library it can actually provide a good learning base. But I assume that many teachers aren't into this... The really great disadvantage with Java is that the programmer relies completely on the garbage collector.
The "not to worry too much about memory or speed" is a REALLY stupid opinion. Hardware is good today in the upper-end systems, but even if the speed is doubled every 18 months or so the optimization of a program can improve speed a lot more. It's more a question of several magnitudes than percent if you find the right spot to optimize.
Learning C is really a good thing - it's small, efficient and fast. Of course - you can do stupid things in C too, but it will bite back pretty fast!
A really good course would be if students were to build their own computers and program them. Not too hard considering the components available today compared to the components available in the 80's when I built my first computer from a Z80, 2716, 6116 and a lot of TTL chips and a few other chips. I still have it, but I'm not sure if I can make it work anymore. Programmed completely in assembly.
Today it would have been either some kind of 8051 (like the nRF24E1) or an ARM. Neither are too bad, and the poison of choice depends more on power consumption versus performance. The only disadvantage with modern processors are that they aren't usually DIL packaged, which means that they are a lot trickier to use when throwing together something just for learning.
is possible, but it's necessary to collect the gases from a huge volume first. Even if it's vacuum it's not absolute, there are a few molecules out there between the planets and stars. The hard thing is to aggregate them.
The easiest way is to use a gravitational sink like a planet. But then it will be contaminated.
Anyhow - I wonder why this article was posted - it seems to attract more than the usual share of oddball flies (comments).
of some kind of attack regardless of your actions.
Encryption is making things harder for those that want to penetrate your business, but use it with care. Too much will do more harm than benefit. Set up boundaries in your systems and encrypt the communication. That's the reasonable way to do things.
Encryption of hard disks may be useful on laptops, but is relatively useless on stationary computers and servers, and will probably only add to the performance overhead. Just be sure that all hard disks are erased before the computers are retired and you have been saving yourself a lot of trouble.
If someone stores data encrypted anyway and the key is lost - well - tough luck unless you have a good policy where backup keys are stored in a safe place.
Only a few businesses will benefit from extreme levels of encryption, and those are mostly working in the military area. In these cases it may be better to just call it a day and consider all data where the key is missing or manhandled as compromised.
Don't forget that it was Paul Villard that discovered the gamma rays.
In my opinion he should be honored by giving the name to the telescope. And considering that he actually isn't a well-known person outside the realms of the scientists working with gamma rays it's even better.
Everybody knows about Einstein, Bohr and Curie, but there are many other.
Of course - the site specifies that it isn't necessary that it's a scientist - it can be just about anybody. Just go ahead and suggest some names. I would not recommend names like "Iosif Vissarionovitj Dzjugasjvili", "Ilich Ramírez Sánchez" or "Saloth Sar", but your opinion may be different.
Why not? If having a handgun without a permit is a crime that can be punished by imprisonment even criminals will be out of circulation for a while just because they are caught with a handgun without permit.
Gun's are actually poor protection. If you want protection buy a bulletproof vest or a bodyguard. If you have a gun visible it's even likely that it can draw fire rather than repel by the "shoot first ask later" consideration.
that when a disk starts to reach it's capacity the performance degradation impact on the operating system can be considerable. This because the seek times are increasing and the fragmentation is also increasing.
In both cases the dealers would have failed to do a sufficient verification of the ID by checking that it was valid and not reported as missing and that the person providing it did match the person holding it. So in both cases the dealers has to take full responsibility by being insufficient.
Will that source code really be useful? A component like this may be completely useless in any other environment or maybe it can be seen as a curiosity and nothing more.
Some of the ideas may survive in new solutions, but it can be a really bad idea to take this out of concept and trying to graft it upon a different platform. The amount of work involved for that operation may exceed the amount of work to re-create the functionality without source.
It's not actually the fault of webmasters, correctly written web pages SHALL include the doctype.
The real problem is that there are softwares out there that doesn't cache the DTD:s. Sometimes it may be that a web browser is told to not cache anything at all, but this may be since the user has specific problems of caching other content and that the web browser uses one global cache instead of doing a separate caching of special resources like the DTD:s.
Using special caching of these resources in your applications and libraries will provide a lot less load and also better performing web pages. We see too much of bad and ugly performance on the web today, some of it is caused by stupidities like this. Of course - a few applications may not be able to cache the DTD:s at all, but these should be designed to not need to download the DTD:s anyway.
The only circumstance that the webmasters shall check is that they provide exactly the same doctype definition for all their pages. Essentially not having a variation in mix of upper and lower case, bad spacings etc. but that's a trivial fix.
One thing that really fails to make the mark here is some kind of statistics provided telling about what kind of user-agents that are the worst. By providing this information a lot could be gained in turn by pointing out the offenders. (Some may not even be aware that their application does this)
Slashdot Mirror
One must question if it really is a feasible weapon for a bomber as the B1-B is. You probably want to carry something that packs a lot more punch there.
Lasers also tends to lose their power over distance - especially in atmosphere where there are a lot of molecules that are dissipating the energy. High-power lasers are actually suffering more than the plain laser pointers since the high-power lasers also excite the molecules found in the path and that draws energy. This means that a powerful laser beam sent through air can actually be seen by the naked eye - at least when it's dark while a low-power beam is invisible.
And I actually think that an attack aircraft should benefit more from a beam weapon than a bomber. But beam weapons may be of use on other aircraft to take care of incoming missiles - but that will require a relatively light-weight weapon sufficient to take out missiles and this laser is still not very useful for that.
Anyway - see this as a lesson to either release your information fast enough to avoid anyone to take advantage or to improve the security of your data. Preferably both.
The catch with inside affairs is that at some point "knowledge" becomes "rumor" and it couldn't be certain that the data he gained access was the real deal or not. Too many junk mails about stock inflation/deflation are around to allow for anything to be certain.
This means that it's only over a long time that survivability and evolutionary changes can play a role. OK, in the software world a long time is measured in the scale of minutes to a few years - but in the matter of living things like humans it's best measured in generations. A change that occurred many generations ago induced a gene that causes the disorder Hemochromatosis. This was a useful gene for people when the food was very low in iron, but today we have food with a lot of iron and therefore this gene is a bad thing. However in this case the treatment is very simple compared to many other diseases and disorders.
The same goes for computer programs - a feature that is essential for the usability in one generation can be a really big problem in the upcoming generations. It may also be that a feature may be useful in the short term, like the ability to call out warnings. Unfortunately when humans are involved warnings tends to lose their edge over time, but the computer software will not understand this. So in that perspective all those warnings that Vista bloats us with are useless.
As for the canoe example - the canoes used by the pacific islanders are completely different from canoes for river use. And they have the sibling the Kayak, which is very useful for the environment where it originated, but it's not so useful when it comes to long-distance travel. Differences in material used is also important. The materials used by a Kayak may not survive for long close to the equator (it may draw sharks) while it is the best solution for arctic environments.
So the conclusion is that there is no perfect canoe - it depends very much on where it is used, and sometimes an insignificant difference between two individuals may be irrelevant in any other environment than the precise home environment of the specific canoe where it may prove a very useful feature.
Same goes for humans. In central Africa people tends to have large noses while in arctic regions the nose is small. The reason is that a large nose can allow for more heat to escape while a person is breathing while a small one is useful for conserving the heat.
For search engines they have already acquired Fast, so they are in the search business.
In my opinion they are probably out to diminish the smaller actors in online advertising to gain more clients on their own advertisement service before going for Google. That either by buying or by creating confusion. It is possible that they see that there is an end to the incomes generated by Windows and Office and that they need a new area where they can put their leverage in. And don't expect it to go soft - they will do the bandwagon thing by first eliminate the competition and then raise the prices to pay off the investment.
Combine this with all the FUD they are spreading and chairs thrown and you get a M$-blue future where all needs DirectX and Silverlight on their computer to read mail, search the web or browse /.
A cheap Linux box running Sendmail and an installation of OpenSSL to let Sendmail be able to run SMTPS.
On top of that use a POP3/IMAP server that can do POP3S/IMAPS and you can access your mail without the risk of an accidental peek.
Most information about how to tweak these are found quickly by using Google, while many commercial packages are cumbersome and also sometimes requires configuration in many places/modules using a variety of user interfaces to be both safe and stable.
What often happens is that when a support issue actually occurs it can cost a lot of time to straighten out while trying to contact a vendor but it is likely already fixed in an open source package one way or another. What many analysts fails to see is that each support case can create a downtime that has an impact on both support personnel and a lot of people depending on the service.
"The time to fix" factor is seldom seen in an analysis like this.
There are of course also open source packages that doesn't work as well, but the author is often aware of that and has probably inserted a huge disclaimer stating the limitations. And how many times have you seen a limitation declaration in a commercial package? (Unless of course it's a liability limitation).
And are there any possibility to let the court know what the public opinion on this is? The Chapter 7 should be more appropriate.
At least SCO weren't eligible to file for Chapter 12. Wonder what would have happened if they also were owning a huge farm in the midwest too...
But from what I understood - this transaction has to be granted by a court before it's valid.
Just find that court first and hand them your opinion on the matter.
What will happen if that service is unavailable for an innocent that needs emergency service? Who is to blame then?
I for sure would want to hold someone personally responsible. The internet connection is more than just an amusement that can be turned off today - it has changed into something much more important.
So cutting off people shall be an alternative that really has to be considered a last resort.
Just avoid being out in criminal action when the weather is clear - wait for a rainy overcast day and you are clear from most surveillance - even the local cameras can't see much in heavy rain.
While we try to complain about the lack of freedom in many countries like China, Cuba or Myanmar the reality is that we are giving up our freedom bit by bit just because it's motivated by "war against terrorism" or "environmental concerns".
I like the approach of the guy driving a huge V8 pickup just because he likes stormy weather - he is a windsurfer!
But throttling the speed just because they CAN is not the way to go. It's just a way to ask for upset users.
A more reasonable limitation would be that the copyright should be held as long as an artist is alive, or five years (whichever is the longer). If the artist dies within five years the copyright shall fall on next of kin.
A starting language shall not be too unforgiving, and there is a small advantage with Java, and it is that it's very C-like. At least as long as you don't use a lot of built-in classes. If a student is limited to the "java.lang" package and isn't allowed to use anything else from the Java library it can actually provide a good learning base. But I assume that many teachers aren't into this... The really great disadvantage with Java is that the programmer relies completely on the garbage collector.
The "not to worry too much about memory or speed" is a REALLY stupid opinion. Hardware is good today in the upper-end systems, but even if the speed is doubled every 18 months or so the optimization of a program can improve speed a lot more. It's more a question of several magnitudes than percent if you find the right spot to optimize.
Learning C is really a good thing - it's small, efficient and fast. Of course - you can do stupid things in C too, but it will bite back pretty fast!
A really good course would be if students were to build their own computers and program them. Not too hard considering the components available today compared to the components available in the 80's when I built my first computer from a Z80, 2716, 6116 and a lot of TTL chips and a few other chips. I still have it, but I'm not sure if I can make it work anymore. Programmed completely in assembly.
Today it would have been either some kind of 8051 (like the nRF24E1) or an ARM. Neither are too bad, and the poison of choice depends more on power consumption versus performance. The only disadvantage with modern processors are that they aren't usually DIL packaged, which means that they are a lot trickier to use when throwing together something just for learning.
Sometimes things are classified just to avoid embarrassment and not because they really are a secret.
The easiest way is to use a gravitational sink like a planet. But then it will be contaminated.
Anyhow - I wonder why this article was posted - it seems to attract more than the usual share of oddball flies (comments).
- To introduce and try to copy-protect the OS?
- To put effort into cracking an OS that you probably won't use anyway.
OK, the second issue is probably answered by "Because I CAN".Encryption is making things harder for those that want to penetrate your business, but use it with care. Too much will do more harm than benefit. Set up boundaries in your systems and encrypt the communication. That's the reasonable way to do things.
Encryption of hard disks may be useful on laptops, but is relatively useless on stationary computers and servers, and will probably only add to the performance overhead. Just be sure that all hard disks are erased before the computers are retired and you have been saving yourself a lot of trouble.
If someone stores data encrypted anyway and the key is lost - well - tough luck unless you have a good policy where backup keys are stored in a safe place.
Only a few businesses will benefit from extreme levels of encryption, and those are mostly working in the military area. In these cases it may be better to just call it a day and consider all data where the key is missing or manhandled as compromised.
In my opinion he should be honored by giving the name to the telescope. And considering that he actually isn't a well-known person outside the realms of the scientists working with gamma rays it's even better.
Everybody knows about Einstein, Bohr and Curie, but there are many other.
Of course - the site specifies that it isn't necessary that it's a scientist - it can be just about anybody. Just go ahead and suggest some names. I would not recommend names like "Iosif Vissarionovitj Dzjugasjvili", "Ilich Ramírez Sánchez" or "Saloth Sar", but your opinion may be different.
Gun's are actually poor protection. If you want protection buy a bulletproof vest or a bodyguard. If you have a gun visible it's even likely that it can draw fire rather than repel by the "shoot first ask later" consideration.
...it would be far much easier to just build a dam and a waterwheel to harness the energy of rain.
that when a disk starts to reach it's capacity the performance degradation impact on the operating system can be considerable. This because the seek times are increasing and the fragmentation is also increasing.
If not using the setRequestProperty("User-Agent", "pickled herring") the user agent reported will be the current Java version.
In both cases the dealers would have failed to do a sufficient verification of the ID by checking that it was valid and not reported as missing and that the person providing it did match the person holding it. So in both cases the dealers has to take full responsibility by being insufficient.
Some of the ideas may survive in new solutions, but it can be a really bad idea to take this out of concept and trying to graft it upon a different platform. The amount of work involved for that operation may exceed the amount of work to re-create the functionality without source.
The real problem is that there are softwares out there that doesn't cache the DTD:s. Sometimes it may be that a web browser is told to not cache anything at all, but this may be since the user has specific problems of caching other content and that the web browser uses one global cache instead of doing a separate caching of special resources like the DTD:s.
Using special caching of these resources in your applications and libraries will provide a lot less load and also better performing web pages. We see too much of bad and ugly performance on the web today, some of it is caused by stupidities like this. Of course - a few applications may not be able to cache the DTD:s at all, but these should be designed to not need to download the DTD:s anyway.
The only circumstance that the webmasters shall check is that they provide exactly the same doctype definition for all their pages. Essentially not having a variation in mix of upper and lower case, bad spacings etc. but that's a trivial fix.
One thing that really fails to make the mark here is some kind of statistics provided telling about what kind of user-agents that are the worst. By providing this information a lot could be gained in turn by pointing out the offenders. (Some may not even be aware that their application does this)