When I was working on the vascular surgery ward, the beds were crammed with two kinds of people ; smokers, and type-2 diabetics. Many of them were both kinds. Most type-2 diabetes is self-inflicted and can be avoided through managing your weight and diet properly. Combining smoking with type-2 diabetes is basically asking to have your legs amputated.
When I was working on the pulmonary ward, the beds were crammed with 2 kinds of people - smokers, and asthmatics.
When I was working the infectious diseases ward, the patients were predominately junkies, with conditions brought on as a result of their habit.
When I was on ENT, the patients were of three types ; young children needing routine surgery like tonsillectomies and ear grommets, persistent nosebleeds, and really nasty mouth and throat cancers. The cancer patients were, you guessed it, all smokers.
So the vast majority of patients with chronic, manageable, expensive conditions, some requiring multiple surgeries just to get back a fraction of the function they should have had, were smokers, and fatties, and the worst of them were fat smokers.
Smoking and obesity cost the health service huge sweaty wads of money and I find your assertion to the contrary to be baseless.
This isn't true ; while some vendors are not helpful on the driver front, it doesn't prevent kernel hackers from writing drivers. They just have to reverse engineer them a lot more.
Typically if the hardware scratches the itch of a kernel developer, it will get a driver, regardless of how helpful the vendor is being. Webcams being the classic example.
This guy (who isn't even a programmer by trade - he's a radiologist) wrote a USB webcam driver because he bought his daughters a pair of webcams that didn't work in Linux. From there, he realized that much of the code in webcam drivers is applicable to all webcams.. the end result is that his drivers now support a large number of cameras with various chipsets, and that any improvements to the driver code improve the drivers for ALL those cameras and not just the ones from a single vendor.
Download it and print it out. I think I still have archives of it languishing on floppies in a storage unit somewhere, labelled "Soundblaster driver disk 1/2".
A lot of it could credibly be considered disinformation spread by three-letter agencies to weed out the incompetent terrorist wannabes. There are certainly plenty of things in there that will get you killed, or possibly just make you feel stupid enough to give up. A lot of it is also hopelessly outdated. Plenty more was never applicable to the UK, especially the chapters on phreaking. I would imagine phreaking in the UK to be well-nigh impossible now.
Most of the stuff that still applies is much better learned from a chemistry textbook, which will also throw in handy hints about how not to get maimed.
Waving an A-level chemistry textbook and shouting "Arrest me! I have material that could be of use to terrorists!" is a much better protest, because it's material that is itself mandated for distribution throughout our school system by the government, without the negative image that the Anarchists Cookbook has.
The name comes from the town of Hamburg (in Germany), not the kind of meat used.
While the presentation of the meat in a bun is of American origin (inspired by the British Earl of Sandwich, no doubt), the meat dish itself comes from Germany.
I stand by what I said ; if you read it, my point was that specific individuals in no way have to represent the average which the parent poster was talking about, and that there is nothing precluding a (particular) woman being as physically adept as a (particular) man.
Yes, there are factors that bias the distribution in favour of men in terms of strength, which I acknowledged. But statistics do not apply to single individuals. If you select one female and one male at random, chances are that the man is stronger than the woman, but you don't know until you actually test that assumption.
Female characters in an RPG are not meant to represent average females ; they are meant to represent exceptional females. In epidemiological terms, they are a self-selected group, and you cannot apply the general statistics of the entire female population to them.
Statistically speaking, yes, women are not as strong as men ; but this is more to do with male and female culture differences than actual physical makeup.
On the tissue level, both sexes are built of the same bone and muscle materials. Even if you take into account the effects of higher androgen levels in men, there is no reason that a woman cannot achieve musculature equal to a man of similar height.
Women DO tend to be shorter than men, because their skeletal structure matures earlier, so statistically speaking, their mass will be less than a man. Again, this does not account for any particular individual.
As for your assertion that an athletic woman would be beaten by a "normal, decently in shape man", statistics state that "normal" does NOT mean "decently in shape" in most western nations.
I dated a Phys. Ed. teacher once ; she was an ex-member of a national swimming squad. While I was in my school rowing team and worked out regularly, she could probably have kicked my ass. Her upper body was most definitely not weak.
Strength is a minor part of combat ability anyway. As Firefly fans will know, it takes less than a pound of force with a sword to break skin. It's far more important that you choose a weapon appropriate to your build, and learn to wield it properly.
And most people will get badly hurt in one-on-one fighting, especially if their ability is reasonably matched to their opponent... on BOTH sides of the fight. It's only highly imbalanced fights where the "hero" has a level of ability far higher than the "henchmen" that the hero gets off scot-free while the henchmen eat dirt. Which is presumably just the sort of dichotomy that escapist media like RPGs are meant to represent.
It's almost as though they are anticipating something. In my tinfoil hatted moments, I suspect that they are anticipating the arrival of the Diamond Age... the time when a machine capable of manufacturing most consumer goods, including itself is present in every home.
Technology like this renders matter a mere commodity ; manufacturing services will cease to be valuable, the only thing of value will be the programs it runs.
The prospect of such a device running an open OS, and accepting production templates which are themselves open, must terrify certain entities.
Of course, this mild attack of paranoia presumes that these creatures are actually organized enough to think of this. In actuality, their greed over existing IP is probably enough to explain their behavior, without recourse to long-term planning for a future when you can print your own food/clothes/car/plane/house/computer/pharmaceuticals.
Then you could have all the shows, games, music, and books that you want, for free You could have all the old shows, games, music and books you wanted. The supply of new ones would be somewhat limited unless you came up with a new system of patronage to get them produced.
"What's that, one geek will buy the box set and torrent it to everyone else?" "Yup, that's right." "I guess the production budget is $20 then... we'll have to pass on Tricia Helfer and just Handicam your mom in a pair of spandex shorts" "Naah, my mom eats more than $10 worth of Doritos a day" "Shoot, just cut the costume budget and shoot her naked then."
"electrons are injected directly into the powergrid" That's a piece of whimsy on the part of the submitter, but it's not entirely inaccurate. The reactor is designed to collect power in two ways ; primarily from the energy of the emitted alpha particles, secondarily from an x-ray photon converter (would be a "solar panel" if it was solar rays, I suppose). Neither method involves the usual intervening step of using the heat of reaction products to boil water to run through a turbine, and both could be called a direct injection of electrons.
This has all the hallmarks of a bogus project that has succceeded in milking some funding out of some gullible soul You could say the same of ITER and other tokamak fusion projects...
* Enormous amounts of money handed to favoured engineering contractors
* No viable product
* No discernible progress
Oh wait, you can't say any of those things about the dense plasma focus. Nowhere close to the billions that have been poured into tokamaks, it's a viable product on it's own (as a portable bright X-Ray source), and despite the apparent handicaps of a slightly kooky project leader and miniscule funding, their numbers look just as good, if not better, than ITER.
based on some cosmological phenomenon, that is not yet well understood It doesn't even say that in the summary, it says "Lerner's inspiration for the technology".
Kekulé was inspired to discover the structure of benzene by a dream about a snake biting its own tail. It doesn't make his discovery any less valid.
IOW, not actually a scientist, although he may well be knowledgeable Mendel discovered the science of genetics but had no idea about the mechanism of inheritance. His work with peas is still used to teach the subject to school children. Mendel was a monk, with no degree in science, but he was no less a scientist. Science is a method of working, not a description of the level of your education.
we are not even talking about pure deuterium You are quite correct. We are not talking about ANY deuterium ; this is a proton-boron fusion process.
At that temperature the atoms will move about a bit, to say the least.. there will be highly energetic collisions all over the place Watch the google video ; the reaction is confined to a tiny plasma toroid, which is how it achieves such a high temperature. The p-B reaction itself just emits alpha particles (otherwise known as helium ions), and plenty of X-rays, which do not persist and are intended to be captured to generate part of the power output.
Given the number of questions you are asking that have answers (however biased they may be) in that Google Tech Talk, you probably haven't watched it. Why don't you (and any other people thinking of spouting off) do the man the courtesy of hearing him out?
Or are you "not actually a scientist"? A cornerstone of the scientific method is trying to prove yourself wrong.
So you're only off by around 5 orders of magnitude.
The electrolysis is by far the lowest-energy part of the process. The bulk of the energy in fusion research is spent energizing and containing the plasma, and the difficulty of collecting that much energy from your reaction products is the reason that no fusion project so far breaks even.
The page you're looking for is this one [griffinbrown.co.uk] No it isn't. I found that page very early on ; since it was so easy find it doesn't meet my description of being difficult to find. It also makes the opposite point ; I said documents that were valid according to the schema that Office (Excel in particular) wouldn't load. This pages discusses how the output of Office isn't compliant (which is bad enough) ; I was referring to the phenomenon where you take an existing document, edit the XML with a text editor in a way that is compliant with the specification, and it then refuses to load in Excel.
The author tries to edit the value of single cell of an Excel workbook using a text editor, and Excel point-blank refuses to load the document afterwards.
Entering simple numeric values in the XML? They get rounded. So you have to understand the rounding going both ways.
I'd go on, but read the linked page instead, the author makes the point very well that to interoperate (never mind implementing a competing spreadsheet product just to interoperate) with the Excel MOOXML format, you need to have implemented Excel.
criminalize the non-profit facilitation of copyrighted information exchange on the Internet Wouldn't that basically make the majority of open-source software distribution illegal? The only reason the GPL et al have teeth is because of copyright law.
Oh wait, that's not what it actually says. It only talks about infringing material. I'm shocked and surprised that the submitter chose to use such an inflammatory statement in the summary...
new cooperation requirements upon Internet service providers Document says "Procedures enabling rights holders... to obtain information regarding the alleged infringer". It doesn't mention ISPs.
.. impose strict enforcement of intellectual property rights related to Internet activity and trade in information-based goods. The document says that they'd like to remove any liability from ISPs to encourage them to cooperate with copyright holders in the removal of infringing material. Hardly "strict enforcement".
... measures restricting the use of online privacy tools It says "remedies against circumvention of.. protection.. and the trafficking of circumvention devices". It says NOTHING about restricting your ability to use privacy measures online (which would be dumb, because all e-commerce depends on it).
In short, I find you to be exaggerating. A lot. Unless you have another document up your sleeve to back up your assertions, which I doubt.
Testing memory only tests the memory, and maybe the tiny area of CPU that comprises a modern on-die memory controller. Run prime95 or something that actually does some processing.
Microsoft decided that for their systems, a compromise between level 2 and level 1 was necessary. In addition,.NET contains Code-Access-Security (CAS) mechanisms that let you get all the way up to level 6.
4 :.NET APIs are marked with permissions, and.NET assemblies can declare which permissions they need to run. System policy can restrict which applications even get to run, and allow some applications to run with restricted function.
5 : A sandbox is slightly different but can be considered to be a special case of 4 (or a virtual machine, or however else you implement it). Again,.NET will allow you to configure access : to printers, sockets, domains, DNS, environment, files, UI, storage, the registry, threading, calls to unmanaged code, printers, the event log, performance counters, database client libraries, and the data execution protection features of modern CPUs.
6 :.NET can base it's CAS policy on assemblies being signed.
Level 7 I consider to be a special case of level 6 ; where only the people building the OS install have valid signing keys.
ALAS
Firstly, this litany only applies to.NET managed code. Secondly,.NET comes configured out-of-the-box to allow all code executed from a source on the local machine full trust.
To be fair, I don't think most malware writers implement their babies in.NET, not least because not all users have it installed by default, even if it is a Windows Update. But it has a great code security model, marred fatally by it's default configuration.
If it had a dialogue that appeared when you ran software for the first time, asking you for trust parameters, and particularly drawing attention to the lack of a cryptographic signature from a certificate itself signed by a trusted party, it might make some users think twice about running all the insidious crapware they install just for a few emoticons or screensavers.
... that insane proposal for a law to allow laws to be made and abolished by regulation (i.e. without a vote in parliament) He's referring to the "Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill".
And I'll quote them as to why it was scary enough to raise so much protest.
The boringly-named Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill started life as an extremely dangerous piece of legislation. It had the power to grant any minister the ability to amend, replace, or repeal existing legislation. The frightening thing is this: they would have been able to make major changes to the law without Parliament being able to examine it properly, taking away the ability of Parliament to meaningfully represent the citizens of this country.
More worryingly, the minister involved could have amended almost any existing legislation; nothing was protected. So, as was pointed out in The Times by 6 law professors from Cambridge, a minister would have been able to abolish trial by jury, suspend habeas corpus (your right not to be arbitrarily arrested), or change any of the legislation governing the legal system, with the only exceptions being the Bill itself and the Human Rights Act.
A body travelling at enormous speeds gains mass because of the mass of its kinetic energy, which is the quantity described by E=mc^2. The body does not gain any matter (it's particle count remains constant).
The constituents of a nuclear fission reaction neither lose or gain mass. No mass is converted to energy. The energy released is the spare binding energy that the larger nuclei required but the more stable products do not. Products like photons with no intrinsic mass of their own carry away the mass of the energy they embody. No mass is destroyed or "converted to energy".
Even in a matter-antimatter annihilation, the products carry energy equivalent to the combined rest mass of the reagents and thus mass and energy are conserved.
Or, God is the collective mind of all beings in the universe. Is this more clear? No. It's still an empty assertion. You are claiming that self-awareness can exist independent of a material substrate ; you claim that the creation of the universe was the result of its perception by this ephemeral self-awareness (despite it not actually existing to be perceived). You then go on to claim that simple substrates (rocks, etc) are incapable of self-awareness, implying a correlation between substrate complexity and self-awareness ability and that zero matter has zero ability to be self-aware, which contradicts your previous assertion that nothing, which was self-aware, perceived a universe which didn't exist and therefore created it.
Rocks, dirt, sand, dust, mud, minerals and all which is not self aware, is the junk/noise of the universe. It's simply information which wouldn't exist at all without our perception to perceive it into existence and classify it. By this logic, I can create entire solar systems just by building a telescope and observing them. Even better, I could produce falsified images of those solar systems and publish them, and they'd be created just by people observing my images.
What's the difference between images recorded by the CCD in my telescope and fake images? The telescope isn't self-aware, it can't possibly have "perceived anything into existence", the only thing I am perceiving is a pattern of excited phosphor spots on a screen, so by your logic either
The real solar system isn't there because I didn't perceive it, just a pattern of phosphor spots
The fake one IS there because people perceived an otherwise identical pattern of light.
In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded. This short quote from Terry Pratchett, despite being severely tongue in cheek and the preface to a work of fiction, is more insightful than your entire page of drivel.
I've already seen examples of MOO-XML that are compliant to the schema but won't load in Office. I would link to the blog in question, but searching for "office not compliant OOXML" now chokes up so many links (mostly about how bad it is) that I had trouble finding it.
And just being able to reproduce the format doesn't say anything about the behaviour of your application either. A schema cannot verify that you are implementing the behaviour for indentLikeWord97 (or whatever they search/replaced it with), so you have no idea from reading the schema OR the standard how to implement it.
Your only recourse would be to get a copy of Word97, and reverse-engineer a painstaking model of how it indented things, and implement that yourself. And repeat this ad-infinitum for all 6,000 pages of the spec. Which is clearly not a viable option ; not even for Microsoft, who rather obviously produced this "standard" by serializing their internal binary formats and then nailing a schema on top and filling in the annotation tags.
Even MS don't know how to indentLikeWord97, but the fusty old indent routine languishing in the back of the Office source tree does. The only way to implement the "standard" with reasonable alacrity is therefore to have that source code ; which of course, is never going be allowed by MS ; not that anyone wants it anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was working on the vascular surgery ward, the beds were crammed with two kinds of people ; smokers, and type-2 diabetics. Many of them were both kinds. Most type-2 diabetes is self-inflicted and can be avoided through managing your weight and diet properly. Combining smoking with type-2 diabetes is basically asking to have your legs amputated.
When I was working on the pulmonary ward, the beds were crammed with 2 kinds of people - smokers, and asthmatics.
When I was working the infectious diseases ward, the patients were predominately junkies, with conditions brought on as a result of their habit.
When I was on ENT, the patients were of three types ; young children needing routine surgery like tonsillectomies and ear grommets, persistent nosebleeds, and really nasty mouth and throat cancers. The cancer patients were, you guessed it, all smokers.
So the vast majority of patients with chronic, manageable, expensive conditions, some requiring multiple surgeries just to get back a fraction of the function they should have had, were smokers, and fatties, and the worst of them were fat smokers.
Smoking and obesity cost the health service huge sweaty wads of money and I find your assertion to the contrary to be baseless.
This isn't true ; while some vendors are not helpful on the driver front, it doesn't prevent kernel hackers from writing drivers. They just have to reverse engineer them a lot more.
Typically if the hardware scratches the itch of a kernel developer, it will get a driver, regardless of how helpful the vendor is being. Webcams being the classic example.
French guy writes drivers for 235 USB webcams
This guy (who isn't even a programmer by trade - he's a radiologist) wrote a USB webcam driver because he bought his daughters a pair of webcams that didn't work in Linux. From there, he realized that much of the code in webcam drivers is applicable to all webcams.. the end result is that his drivers now support a large number of cameras with various chipsets, and that any improvements to the driver code improve the drivers for ALL those cameras and not just the ones from a single vendor.
Buy? BUY!??!
Download it and print it out. I think I still have archives of it languishing on floppies in a storage unit somewhere, labelled "Soundblaster driver disk 1/2".
A lot of it could credibly be considered disinformation spread by three-letter agencies to weed out the incompetent terrorist wannabes. There are certainly plenty of things in there that will get you killed, or possibly just make you feel stupid enough to give up. A lot of it is also hopelessly outdated. Plenty more was never applicable to the UK, especially the chapters on phreaking. I would imagine phreaking in the UK to be well-nigh impossible now.
Most of the stuff that still applies is much better learned from a chemistry textbook, which will also throw in handy hints about how not to get maimed.
Waving an A-level chemistry textbook and shouting "Arrest me! I have material that could be of use to terrorists!" is a much better protest, because it's material that is itself mandated for distribution throughout our school system by the government, without the negative image that the Anarchists Cookbook has.
The name comes from the town of Hamburg (in Germany), not the kind of meat used.
While the presentation of the meat in a bun is of American origin (inspired by the British Earl of Sandwich, no doubt), the meat dish itself comes from Germany.
Ham is a subset of pork, not beef.
I prefer MOOXML.
Not only does it reinforce the concept that this is a product of Microsoft, it has amusing cow connotations.
I have a medical degree.
I stand by what I said ; if you read it, my point was that specific individuals in no way have to represent the average which the parent poster was talking about, and that there is nothing precluding a (particular) woman being as physically adept as a (particular) man.
Yes, there are factors that bias the distribution in favour of men in terms of strength, which I acknowledged. But statistics do not apply to single individuals. If you select one female and one male at random, chances are that the man is stronger than the woman, but you don't know until you actually test that assumption.
Female characters in an RPG are not meant to represent average females ; they are meant to represent exceptional females. In epidemiological terms, they are a self-selected group, and you cannot apply the general statistics of the entire female population to them.
That's a statistic ; not a fact.
Statistically speaking, yes, women are not as strong as men ; but this is more to do with male and female culture differences than actual physical makeup.
On the tissue level, both sexes are built of the same bone and muscle materials. Even if you take into account the effects of higher androgen levels in men, there is no reason that a woman cannot achieve musculature equal to a man of similar height.
Women DO tend to be shorter than men, because their skeletal structure matures earlier, so statistically speaking, their mass will be less than a man. Again, this does not account for any particular individual.
As for your assertion that an athletic woman would be beaten by a "normal, decently in shape man", statistics state that "normal" does NOT mean "decently in shape" in most western nations.
I dated a Phys. Ed. teacher once ; she was an ex-member of a national swimming squad. While I was in my school rowing team and worked out regularly, she could probably have kicked my ass. Her upper body was most definitely not weak.
Strength is a minor part of combat ability anyway. As Firefly fans will know, it takes less than a pound of force with a sword to break skin. It's far more important that you choose a weapon appropriate to your build, and learn to wield it properly.
And most people will get badly hurt in one-on-one fighting, especially if their ability is reasonably matched to their opponent... on BOTH sides of the fight. It's only highly imbalanced fights where the "hero" has a level of ability far higher than the "henchmen" that the hero gets off scot-free while the henchmen eat dirt. Which is presumably just the sort of dichotomy that escapist media like RPGs are meant to represent.
Your first known-plaintext attack would be against the RC4 key that the RSA key protects ; then you'd have to attack the RSA key.
Technology like this renders matter a mere commodity ; manufacturing services will cease to be valuable, the only thing of value will be the programs it runs.
The prospect of such a device running an open OS, and accepting production templates which are themselves open, must terrify certain entities.
Of course, this mild attack of paranoia presumes that these creatures are actually organized enough to think of this. In actuality, their greed over existing IP is probably enough to explain their behavior, without recourse to long-term planning for a future when you can print your own food/clothes/car/plane/house/computer/pharmaceuticals.
Chuck Norris never backs up ; if his data and the universe disagree, the universe is wrong, not the data.
"Yup, that's right."
"I guess the production budget is $20 then... we'll have to pass on Tricia Helfer and just Handicam your mom in a pair of spandex shorts"
"Naah, my mom eats more than $10 worth of Doritos a day"
"Shoot, just cut the costume budget and shoot her naked then."
Engineer : Because I can
... make money from it
Businessman : Because I can
There, fixed that for you.
Apologies to parent, should have directed post to GP.
* Enormous amounts of money handed to favoured engineering contractors
* No viable product
* No discernible progress
Oh wait, you can't say any of those things about the dense plasma focus. Nowhere close to the billions that have been poured into tokamaks, it's a viable product on it's own (as a portable bright X-Ray source), and despite the apparent handicaps of a slightly kooky project leader and miniscule funding, their numbers look just as good, if not better, than ITER. based on some cosmological phenomenon, that is not yet well understood It doesn't even say that in the summary, it says "Lerner's inspiration for the technology".
Kekulé was inspired to discover the structure of benzene by a dream about a snake biting its own tail. It doesn't make his discovery any less valid. IOW, not actually a scientist, although he may well be knowledgeable Mendel discovered the science of genetics but had no idea about the mechanism of inheritance. His work with peas is still used to teach the subject to school children. Mendel was a monk, with no degree in science, but he was no less a scientist. Science is a method of working, not a description of the level of your education. we are not even talking about pure deuterium You are quite correct. We are not talking about ANY deuterium ; this is a proton-boron fusion process. At that temperature the atoms will move about a bit, to say the least
Given the number of questions you are asking that have answers (however biased they may be) in that Google Tech Talk, you probably haven't watched it. Why don't you (and any other people thinking of spouting off) do the man the courtesy of hearing him out?
Or are you "not actually a scientist"? A cornerstone of the scientific method is trying to prove yourself wrong.
Electrolysis of water
2 x H2O + 1.25 eV => 2 x H2 + 1 x O2
Ionization energy of atomic hydrogen
13.6 eV
Proton-boron fusion
1 x p + 1 11B => 3 x 4He + 8.7 MeV
So you're only off by around 5 orders of magnitude.
The electrolysis is by far the lowest-energy part of the process. The bulk of the energy in fusion research is spent energizing and containing the plasma, and the difficulty of collecting that much energy from your reaction products is the reason that no fusion project so far breaks even.
A little more hunting reveals this.
Office formats defective
The author tries to edit the value of single cell of an Excel workbook using a text editor, and Excel point-blank refuses to load the document afterwards.
Entering simple numeric values in the XML? They get rounded. So you have to understand the rounding going both ways.
I'd go on, but read the linked page instead, the author makes the point very well that to interoperate (never mind implementing a competing spreadsheet product just to interoperate) with the Excel MOOXML format, you need to have implemented Excel.
Oh wait, that's not what it actually says. It only talks about infringing material. I'm shocked and surprised that the submitter chose to use such an inflammatory statement in the summary... new cooperation requirements upon Internet service providers Document says "Procedures enabling rights holders
.. impose strict enforcement of intellectual property rights related to Internet activity and trade in information-based goods. The document says that they'd like to remove any liability from ISPs to encourage them to cooperate with copyright holders in the removal of infringing material. Hardly "strict enforcement".In short, I find you to be exaggerating. A lot. Unless you have another document up your sleeve to back up your assertions, which I doubt.
Testing memory only tests the memory, and maybe the tiny area of CPU that comprises a modern on-die memory controller. Run prime95 or something that actually does some processing.
Except when you mistype ">>" as ">" one day, your entire database gets erased. Oopsie.
4 :
5 : A sandbox is slightly different but can be considered to be a special case of 4 (or a virtual machine, or however else you implement it). Again,
6 :
Level 7 I consider to be a special case of level 6 ; where only the people building the OS install have valid signing keys.
ALAS
Firstly, this litany only applies to
Secondly,
Go to the back of the class, Bill
To be fair, I don't think most malware writers implement their babies in
If it had a dialogue that appeared when you ran software for the first time, asking you for trust parameters, and particularly drawing attention to the lack of a cryptographic signature from a certificate itself signed by a trusted party, it might make some users think twice about running all the insidious crapware they install just for a few emoticons or screensavers.
... that insane proposal for a law to allow laws to be made and abolished by regulation (i.e. without a vote in parliament) He's referring to the "Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill".Published text
Opposition website
And I'll quote them as to why it was scary enough to raise so much protest. The boringly-named Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill started life as an extremely dangerous piece of legislation. It had the power to grant any minister the ability to amend, replace, or repeal existing legislation. The frightening thing is this: they would have been able to make major changes to the law without Parliament being able to examine it properly, taking away the ability of Parliament to meaningfully represent the citizens of this country.
More worryingly, the minister involved could have amended almost any existing legislation; nothing was protected. So, as was pointed out in The Times by 6 law professors from Cambridge, a minister would have been able to abolish trial by jury, suspend habeas corpus (your right not to be arbitrarily arrested), or change any of the legislation governing the legal system, with the only exceptions being the Bill itself and the Human Rights Act.
Nielsen isn't responsible for the cancellation of decent television.
The brainless zombies are, because they are in the majority.
The network executives are, because they only look at the bottom line, and the bottom line is brainless zombies.
Lobby your government for a national public broadcaster that has a mandate to inform, educate, and entertain if you want a change.
It does not state that matter and energy are the same thing.
It states that mass has energy, and inversely, energy has mass.
A body travelling at enormous speeds gains mass because of the mass of its kinetic energy, which is the quantity described by E=mc^2. The body does not gain any matter (it's particle count remains constant).
The constituents of a nuclear fission reaction neither lose or gain mass. No mass is converted to energy. The energy released is the spare binding energy that the larger nuclei required but the more stable products do not. Products like photons with no intrinsic mass of their own carry away the mass of the energy they embody. No mass is destroyed or "converted to energy".
Even in a matter-antimatter annihilation, the products carry energy equivalent to the combined rest mass of the reagents and thus mass and energy are conserved.
What's the difference between images recorded by the CCD in my telescope and fake images? The telescope isn't self-aware, it can't possibly have "perceived anything into existence", the only thing I am perceiving is a pattern of excited phosphor spots on a screen, so by your logic either
- The real solar system isn't there because I didn't perceive it, just a pattern of phosphor spots
- The fake one IS there because people perceived an otherwise identical pattern of light.
In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded. This short quote from Terry Pratchett, despite being severely tongue in cheek and the preface to a work of fiction, is more insightful than your entire page of drivel.I've already seen examples of MOO-XML that are compliant to the schema but won't load in Office. I would link to the blog in question, but searching for "office not compliant OOXML" now chokes up so many links (mostly about how bad it is) that I had trouble finding it.
And just being able to reproduce the format doesn't say anything about the behaviour of your application either. A schema cannot verify that you are implementing the behaviour for indentLikeWord97 (or whatever they search/replaced it with), so you have no idea from reading the schema OR the standard how to implement it.
Your only recourse would be to get a copy of Word97, and reverse-engineer a painstaking model of how it indented things, and implement that yourself. And repeat this ad-infinitum for all 6,000 pages of the spec. Which is clearly not a viable option ; not even for Microsoft, who rather obviously produced this "standard" by serializing their internal binary formats and then nailing a schema on top and filling in the annotation tags.
Even MS don't know how to indentLikeWord97, but the fusty old indent routine languishing in the back of the Office source tree does. The only way to implement the "standard" with reasonable alacrity is therefore to have that source code ; which of course, is never going be allowed by MS ; not that anyone wants it anyway.