> So giving Lasix to horses may come with a performance benefit, (since the diuretic causes them to be several pounds lighter) but not giving it to them comes with a known health detriment.
The most casual literature review shows that it's used not only for treatment of bleeding but as a potent diuretic to lighten animals before a race. And since a bit of "bleeding" is extremely common in racing horses, getting the necessary waiver to use the drug is trivial. It seems to be an andemic part of horse racing, along with the "milkshake" treatment used to manipulate race horse blood pH. (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/milk+shake).
Given that the milkshake is forcibly applied through a nasal cannula, it's difficult to believe it's anything but a common, tacitly accepted, difficult to detect "doping" technique. The list of such techniques goes on and on.
Given the corruption common to any sport involving serious betting, it can be very difficult to reliably assess the level of doping. But it's certainly commonplace, if not the norm. A casual look at the use of Lasix, a diuretic, in racing animals reveals its widespread use for racing horses and dogs. And the manipulation of supplies of drinking water to both species can be a nearly indetectable form of chemical abuse.
The mess was _controlled_, and protected from, because the Linux kernel had a clear and open trail for all of its source. This isn't available for closed source software. Litigious companies, especially software copyright trolls and patent trolls, can and do make fallacious claims as a matter of course: the clean and clear provenance of free software, and of most open source software, help prevent exactly such lawsuits. I've faced them and, generally, been able to protect me and my clients from such suits.
The _patent_ trolls are a whole other layer of problem. The GPLv3 was created to help with those, and it has.
> And if the proprietary software is declared as such but is *better than* the free software, that's not OK?
We ran into this with SCO OpenServer . SCO OpenServer was a pretty good closed source UNIX. The company casually published freeware, open source, and proprietary tools. They then turned on the free software community with fraudulent claims of copyright violation in the Linux kernel, claims made against both other software companies but also against those companies' clients. Much of the legal history of the event is available at http://www.groklaw.net/: one of the problems that extended the lawsuits was SCO's unwillingness to specify, or document, their claims. One of the factors that helped Red Hat in the resulting legal mess was the clear provenance and licensing of every bit of Red Hat code, and Red Hat's very clear careful licensing and segregation of proprietary, closed source tools, and of open source tools for which they could publish the source code and their modifications.
There are several/8's that are profoundly under-utilized, and which could be cut back to/16's if the relevant owners universities switched to NAT and better managed proxies. Most of that work has already been done as NAT and proxy based network control grew. These include Eli Lilly, the US postal service, MIT, and many other reserved/8 owners.
> There wasn't anything to fix, as nothing was broken, and IPv6 autoconfiguration handles everything so there isn't even any setup involved, it just works.
Except when it does not work. It mostly worked because very few people _bothered_, only those who'd already invested in the technology and the learning. I'll challenge you to find a single ".com" domain that uses only IPv6. And there are many tools being published today with commercial code bases and 10 year support contracts which only handle IPv4 correctly or natively. This was especially true due to the lack of NAT, to prevent routing external traffic except through a designated gateway, although this is easing up.
No one is IPv6 ready. Out of hte last 10 companies I dealt with professionally, only one had an IPv6 for anything, and it was only for AWS hosted load balancers.
The "trouble" is minimal. The encryption is identifiable by its public keys, especially when the "keys" are nailed to the motherboard by programls like "Trusted Computing" and held by Microsoft in their "escrow", with no policy of resisting any requests whatsoever. Examine the pratices and policy of that technology carefully: it's not aimed at protecting users, it's aimed at both DRM and at making documents _traceable_ to specific sources.
Unfortunately, many git authors refuse to use signed tags for a variety of reasons. For a large scale example of this as a matter of corporate policy, review https://git.centos.org./ This is now the official public repository for Red Hat Enteprise Linux 7 public source code. I'm afraid that they adamantly refuse to use "tags" for publishing particular software versions of their content and instead rely on the word "import" in their git logs to indicate the released versions of source code.
A great deal of similarly casual handling of git security is in use at github, at Sourceforge, and was in use at gitorious. Not all software authors are very careful about ensuring the security of their published code.
I didn't go into enough depth to make enough of the disparity clear. The first _Greek_ versions were apparently translations of older documents, such as the "Q" document of parables about Jesus, deduced from the extensive overlap among several of the "gospel" books of the New Testament. I've seen no reason to think that those Greek documents were original rather than being edited form older documents.
If there are critical files that cannot be reliably accessed and have to be excluded simply because they are "open", then rsync over SSH cannot be a reliable backup tool. The files that are "open" will be those most critical and often in use, such as email backup and critical spreadsheets. One can get rsync to back up the rest of the filesystem more reliably by doing a CIFS mount of the files elsewhere, such as mounting it to a Linux systerm, and simply ignoring the complexities of Windows file ownership. Since the "C:" drive is almost always exported as the hidden "C$" share, it's almost always available if you have the credentials.
I've had quite a bit of amusement showing this little technique to Windows admins who insisted they needed remote console access to review the status of their internal systems.
It involves more than a little bit of tweaking. Files that are "locked" on the Windows side make rsync hang, and fail when accessed over an rsync/SSH connection. This particularly includes the Outlook ".PST" file, the email storage file that is one of the most critical files to back up on a personal system.
The user interface. It's quite poor and has no "export" or "import" tools for transferring configurations to other users, and the modifying settings for SSH tunnels or terminal or user options isn't saved until you return to the initial screen, with no information on what the changes wehre and no recovery of preivous configuraitons.
Putty is most useful when combined with a wrapper tool that manages multiple sessions more gracefully, there are several very effective free ones. Personally, I tend to use Cygwin OpenSSH so that I can use $HOME/.ssh/config files, and send them to other users, to reproduce complex configurations more effectively.
Absolutely not. The TSA in many if not most airports are demonstrably incompetent to keep weaponry out of the hands of moderately intelligent attackers, as has been demonstrated by test after test. The far more effective, and demonstrably effective change is that other passengers and flight crews no longer tolerate hijacking or even suspicious behavior.
They already knew that TSA screenings are security theater. It takes only a bit of casual observation, from the waiting lounge, to see which security personnel at which airport are competent or most overwhelmed. The 9/11 terrorists and any modern counterparts have opportunities to visit or travel through airports with _real_ security, like Egypt, Arabia, Pakistan, and Israel, and see the trade-offs between cost and security at all of them. There were compelling reasons that the 9/11 attackers chose Boston to fly from: one of the reasons was doubtless the very lax security at Logan Airport.
Doing a "lot of attempts" winds up getting one attempt noticed and tightening up security at that airport and possibly others, so "do a lot of attempts" breaks down quickly. What a lot of attempts could do is drain the budget of the TSA and of airlines: overwhelming the staff with hundreds or thousands of false positives over a day or a week would cost the TSA and the airlines many millions of dollars, Simply wiping or spraying enough nitrate residues on a an escalator handrail would expose hundreds, even thousands of people in a day to explosive detection and wipe out the resources and budget of many TSA offices.
No known New Testament manuscripts are from before approximately 125 AD. The original authors had probably been dead at least 50 years, and the documents had been copied and edited several times before those oldest documents were written. Please try not to insist on perfect duplication and correct translation for documents being written in the midst of devout religious change, the language is quite likely to get revised in translation and transcription.
A black hole is therefore a region of space that is totally, utterly dominated by the force of gravity.
It's clear the author knows little to nothing about physics. The physics _inside_ a black hole is local and can be quite normal: there's no reason to think it's _not_ normal physics. The definition of black holes involves the net effect of gravitation _outside_ the black hole, with a net escape velocity greater than C. Normal physics inside a black hole itself is critical to the "cyclic" models of the universe, where the gravitational mass is sufficient to draw the mass of the closed universe back and initiate a new "Big Bang". According to this model, the universe itself is one large black hole which we live inside. That's quite difficult if we're in a region of space that is "totally, utterly dominated by the force of gravity".
Some of the theoretical difficulty and potential for weird physics comes in observing the internal physics from outside the black hole. There's potential for a distinct set of physical laws, because it's effectively isolated and we can't observe the inside from the outside. But even those physical laws seem to obey angular momentum and charge, which can be be observed from outside the black hole itself much as the black hole's net gravity can be observed from outside.
Finally, there is no compelling reason to believe that there is _ever_ such an object as a completely spherical, detectable black hole, which is what this poorly researched article keeps talking about. Extremely small black holes, formed by possibly electrically neutral and non-spinning compressed objects, effectively evaporate extremely quickly for reasons described by Stephen Hawking described decades ago. Such an object might be spin neutral and electrically neutral, but would evaporate too quickly to be observed well at galactic distances. It's difficult to imagine there is any circumstance in which a larger black hole would have no spin whatsoever, and a spinning black hole is _not_ spherical. The earliest models of black holes described spinning black holes, including the work by Kerr, Penrose, and Hawking. (http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1019)
It would be understandable to leave out such details in a shorter essay that didn't make such absolute claims. But no competent science editor would have ever let this be printed in any science magazine above the 1st grade level: the proliferation of bad chemistry, physics, and biology of such badly written content is a disheartening effect of modern web publishing.
QA also doesn't get to test a lot of complete systems. It's very expensive, and for testing entire rocket systems including the third stage, it's pretty destructive.
> BTW, you call chemistry "basic"? Why is chemistry of any practical use to anyone but anyone but a chemist?
Do you cook, or take any medications? A bit of knowledge of how they actually work can be invaluable, and the handling of precise quantities with expected results is also valuable. So is the discovery of margins of error: chemistry in a simulator program doesn't provide that.
Complex systems, such as human bodies, often have a "bathtub curve" of failure probabilities. Numerous potential flaws are most likely at the start of the system's existence, which is why infant mortality and miscarriage remain noticeable even with the most advanced medical support. And as bodies age, more and more smaller flaws accumulate to cause more and more profound system problems. These range from vascular problems, likely to cause strokes and aneurysms, to the wear and tear on joints causing motion problems, to accumulated heavy metal poisoning and debris in the lungs, to the ongoing risk of cancers.
Until complete prevention or cures exist for all of those issues, it seems nonsensical to discuss the population issues of eternal life. Population _growth_ from people living even a decade longer is a much more real and noticeable issue in our economy and resources. So is the cost of medical care for those older people. We're already seeing problems with Medicare funding and elderly care being real economic and political problems in the USA. This is partly because, as we reach the far end of that "bathtub" curve for human beings, addressing one factor that might have killed people far earlier, such as very successful heart surgery and antibiotics for infections that used to kill older people easily, end when more complex and difficult problems finally occur.
I am, myself, old enough to feel these effects. They do accumulate.
Except that according to general relativity, gravitational _waves_ also are limited to C. As long as people confuse the current state of the system and what are basically "phase velocity" of changes in that state with the limitations of the "group veolocity", which is limited to C, we'll continue to see this sort of confusion.
> The problem is that sending people to Mars is very expensive and the billions of dollars wasted on sending people to die on an inhospitable planet could be better used for other things.
Which is what people in my youth said about the Moon landing and, frankly, has been a constant refrain against all space flight. It's difficult to know which parts of interplanetary flight and technology will pay off the most, and I'd prefer myself to pursue some of those likely byproducts first. But just a few potential benefits include the multiplication of our space capacity, enough to support zero-gee crystal and semiconductor manufacture, zero-gee electrophoresis that multiplies the sensitivity of certain types of chemical analysis, solar power from space based solar mirrors, and the migration of the most dangerous biological and nuclear research to orbital or lunar bases instead of Earth based bases.
Mars 1 seems a poorly selected political target for space development, because the obstacles are so very large they may absorb all the resources that could more quickly and effectively build a real space infrastructure. But watch, in the mantime, while many proponents of real space flight and technology manage to squeeze some funding out of the overall Mars 1 project.
Slashdot Mirror
> So giving Lasix to horses may come with a performance benefit, (since the diuretic causes them to be several pounds lighter) but not giving it to them comes with a known health detriment.
The most casual literature review shows that it's used not only for treatment of bleeding but as a potent diuretic to lighten animals before a race. And since a bit of "bleeding" is extremely common in racing horses, getting the necessary waiver to use the drug is trivial. It seems to be an andemic part of horse racing, along with the "milkshake" treatment used to manipulate race horse blood pH. (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/milk+shake).
Given that the milkshake is forcibly applied through a nasal cannula, it's difficult to believe it's anything but a common, tacitly accepted, difficult to detect "doping" technique. The list of such techniques goes on and on.
Unlike, say, the Tour de France or college track?
Given the corruption common to any sport involving serious betting, it can be very difficult to reliably assess the level of doping. But it's certainly commonplace, if not the norm. A casual look at the use of Lasix, a diuretic, in racing animals reveals its widespread use for racing horses and dogs. And the manipulation of supplies of drinking water to both species can be a nearly indetectable form of chemical abuse.
The mess was _controlled_, and protected from, because the Linux kernel had a clear and open trail for all of its source. This isn't available for closed source software. Litigious companies, especially software copyright trolls and patent trolls, can and do make fallacious claims as a matter of course: the clean and clear provenance of free software, and of most open source software, help prevent exactly such lawsuits. I've faced them and, generally, been able to protect me and my clients from such suits.
The _patent_ trolls are a whole other layer of problem. The GPLv3 was created to help with those, and it has.
> And if the proprietary software is declared as such but is *better than* the free software, that's not OK?
We ran into this with SCO OpenServer . SCO OpenServer was a pretty good closed source UNIX. The company casually published freeware, open source, and proprietary tools. They then turned on the free software community with fraudulent claims of copyright violation in the Linux kernel, claims made against both other software companies but also against those companies' clients. Much of the legal history of the event is available at http://www.groklaw.net/: one of the problems that extended the lawsuits was SCO's unwillingness to specify, or document, their claims. One of the factors that helped Red Hat in the resulting legal mess was the clear provenance and licensing of every bit of Red Hat code, and Red Hat's very clear careful licensing and segregation of proprietary, closed source tools, and of open source tools for which they could publish the source code and their modifications.
There are several /8's that are profoundly under-utilized, and which could be cut back to /16's if the relevant owners universities switched to NAT and better managed proxies. Most of that work has already been done as NAT and proxy based network control grew. These include Eli Lilly, the US postal service, MIT, and many other reserved /8 owners.
> There wasn't anything to fix, as nothing was broken, and IPv6 autoconfiguration handles everything so there isn't even any setup involved, it just works.
Except when it does not work. It mostly worked because very few people _bothered_, only those who'd already invested in the technology and the learning. I'll challenge you to find a single ".com" domain that uses only IPv6. And there are many tools being published today with commercial code bases and 10 year support contracts which only handle IPv4 correctly or natively. This was especially true due to the lack of NAT, to prevent routing external traffic except through a designated gateway, although this is easing up.
No one is IPv6 ready. Out of hte last 10 companies I dealt with professionally, only one had an IPv6 for anything, and it was only for AWS hosted load balancers.
Is there any reason to believe this criminal about anything, especially the claim that they're getting out of the business?
The "trouble" is minimal. The encryption is identifiable by its public keys, especially when the "keys" are nailed to the motherboard by programls like "Trusted Computing" and held by Microsoft in their "escrow", with no policy of resisting any requests whatsoever. Examine the pratices and policy of that technology carefully: it's not aimed at protecting users, it's aimed at both DRM and at making documents _traceable_ to specific sources.
Failing to document the detailed manual steps you never automated is, unfortunately, commonplace.
Unfortunately, many git authors refuse to use signed tags for a variety of reasons. For a large scale example of this as a matter of corporate policy, review https://git.centos.org./ This is now the official public repository for Red Hat Enteprise Linux 7 public source code. I'm afraid that they adamantly refuse to use "tags" for publishing particular software versions of their content and instead rely on the word "import" in their git logs to indicate the released versions of source code.
A great deal of similarly casual handling of git security is in use at github, at Sourceforge, and was in use at gitorious. Not all software authors are very careful about ensuring the security of their published code.
I didn't go into enough depth to make enough of the disparity clear. The first _Greek_ versions were apparently translations of older documents, such as the "Q" document of parables about Jesus, deduced from the extensive overlap among several of the "gospel" books of the New Testament. I've seen no reason to think that those Greek documents were original rather than being edited form older documents.
If there are critical files that cannot be reliably accessed and have to be excluded simply because they are "open", then rsync over SSH cannot be a reliable backup tool. The files that are "open" will be those most critical and often in use, such as email backup and critical spreadsheets. One can get rsync to back up the rest of the filesystem more reliably by doing a CIFS mount of the files elsewhere, such as mounting it to a Linux systerm, and simply ignoring the complexities of Windows file ownership. Since the "C:" drive is almost always exported as the hidden "C$" share, it's almost always available if you have the credentials.
I've had quite a bit of amusement showing this little technique to Windows admins who insisted they needed remote console access to review the status of their internal systems.
It involves more than a little bit of tweaking. Files that are "locked" on the Windows side make rsync hang, and fail when accessed over an rsync/SSH connection. This particularly includes the Outlook ".PST" file, the email storage file that is one of the most critical files to back up on a personal system.
The user interface. It's quite poor and has no "export" or "import" tools for transferring configurations to other users, and the modifying settings for SSH tunnels or terminal or user options isn't saved until you return to the initial screen, with no information on what the changes wehre and no recovery of preivous configuraitons.
Putty is most useful when combined with a wrapper tool that manages multiple sessions more gracefully, there are several very effective free ones. Personally, I tend to use Cygwin OpenSSH so that I can use $HOME/.ssh/config files, and send them to other users, to reproduce complex configurations more effectively.
> THIS PROGRAM HAS DONE ITS JOB
Absolutely not. The TSA in many if not most airports are demonstrably incompetent to keep weaponry out of the hands of moderately intelligent attackers, as has been demonstrated by test after test. The far more effective, and demonstrably effective change is that other passengers and flight crews no longer tolerate hijacking or even suspicious behavior.
They already knew that TSA screenings are security theater. It takes only a bit of casual observation, from the waiting lounge, to see which security personnel at which airport are competent or most overwhelmed. The 9/11 terrorists and any modern counterparts have opportunities to visit or travel through airports with _real_ security, like Egypt, Arabia, Pakistan, and Israel, and see the trade-offs between cost and security at all of them. There were compelling reasons that the 9/11 attackers chose Boston to fly from: one of the reasons was doubtless the very lax security at Logan Airport.
Doing a "lot of attempts" winds up getting one attempt noticed and tightening up security at that airport and possibly others, so "do a lot of attempts" breaks down quickly. What a lot of attempts could do is drain the budget of the TSA and of airlines: overwhelming the staff with hundreds or thousands of false positives over a day or a week would cost the TSA and the airlines many millions of dollars, Simply wiping or spraying enough nitrate residues on a an escalator handrail would expose hundreds, even thousands of people in a day to explosive detection and wipe out the resources and budget of many TSA offices.
No known New Testament manuscripts are from before approximately 125 AD. The original authors had probably been dead at least 50 years, and the documents had been copied and edited several times before those oldest documents were written. Please try not to insist on perfect duplication and correct translation for documents being written in the midst of devout religious change, the language is quite likely to get revised in translation and transcription.
But where, exactly, will it be worn?
When an essay or article has statements ike this:
A black hole is therefore a region of space that is totally, utterly dominated by the force of gravity.
It's clear the author knows little to nothing about physics. The physics _inside_ a black hole is local and can be quite normal: there's no reason to think it's _not_ normal physics. The definition of black holes involves the net effect of gravitation _outside_ the black hole, with a net escape velocity greater than C. Normal physics inside a black hole itself is critical to the "cyclic" models of the universe, where the gravitational mass is sufficient to draw the mass of the closed universe back and initiate a new "Big Bang". According to this model, the universe itself is one large black hole which we live inside. That's quite difficult if we're in a region of space that is "totally, utterly dominated by the force of gravity".
Some of the theoretical difficulty and potential for weird physics comes in observing the internal physics from outside the black hole. There's potential for a distinct set of physical laws, because it's effectively isolated and we can't observe the inside from the outside. But even those physical laws seem to obey angular momentum and charge, which can be be observed from outside the black hole itself much as the black hole's net gravity can be observed from outside.
Finally, there is no compelling reason to believe that there is _ever_ such an object as a completely spherical, detectable black hole, which is what this poorly researched article keeps talking about. Extremely small black holes, formed by possibly electrically neutral and non-spinning compressed objects, effectively evaporate extremely quickly for reasons described by Stephen Hawking described decades ago. Such an object might be spin neutral and electrically neutral, but would evaporate too quickly to be observed well at galactic distances. It's difficult to imagine there is any circumstance in which a larger black hole would have no spin whatsoever, and a spinning black hole is _not_ spherical. The earliest models of black holes described spinning black holes, including the work by Kerr, Penrose, and Hawking. (http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1019)
It would be understandable to leave out such details in a shorter essay that didn't make such absolute claims. But no competent science editor would have ever let this be printed in any science magazine above the 1st grade level: the proliferation of bad chemistry, physics, and biology of such badly written content is a disheartening effect of modern web publishing.
QA also doesn't get to test a lot of complete systems. It's very expensive, and for testing entire rocket systems including the third stage, it's pretty destructive.
> BTW, you call chemistry "basic"? Why is chemistry of any practical use to anyone but anyone but a chemist?
Do you cook, or take any medications? A bit of knowledge of how they actually work can be invaluable, and the handling of precise quantities with expected results is also valuable. So is the discovery of margins of error: chemistry in a simulator program doesn't provide that.
Complex systems, such as human bodies, often have a "bathtub curve" of failure probabilities. Numerous potential flaws are most likely at the start of the system's existence, which is why infant mortality and miscarriage remain noticeable even with the most advanced medical support. And as bodies age, more and more smaller flaws accumulate to cause more and more profound system problems. These range from vascular problems, likely to cause strokes and aneurysms, to the wear and tear on joints causing motion problems, to accumulated heavy metal poisoning and debris in the lungs, to the ongoing risk of cancers.
Until complete prevention or cures exist for all of those issues, it seems nonsensical to discuss the population issues of eternal life. Population _growth_ from people living even a decade longer is a much more real and noticeable issue in our economy and resources. So is the cost of medical care for those older people. We're already seeing problems with Medicare funding and elderly care being real economic and political problems in the USA. This is partly because, as we reach the far end of that "bathtub" curve for human beings, addressing one factor that might have killed people far earlier, such as very successful heart surgery and antibiotics for infections that used to kill older people easily, end when more complex and difficult problems finally occur.
I am, myself, old enough to feel these effects. They do accumulate.
Except that according to general relativity, gravitational _waves_ also are limited to C. As long as people confuse the current state of the system and what are basically "phase velocity" of changes in that state with the limitations of the "group veolocity", which is limited to C, we'll continue to see this sort of confusion.
> The problem is that sending people to Mars is very expensive and the billions of dollars wasted on sending people to die on an inhospitable planet could be better used for other things.
Which is what people in my youth said about the Moon landing and, frankly, has been a constant refrain against all space flight. It's difficult to know which parts of interplanetary flight and technology will pay off the most, and I'd prefer myself to pursue some of those likely byproducts first. But just a few potential benefits include the multiplication of our space capacity, enough to support zero-gee crystal and semiconductor manufacture, zero-gee electrophoresis that multiplies the sensitivity of certain types of chemical analysis, solar power from space based solar mirrors, and the migration of the most dangerous biological and nuclear research to orbital or lunar bases instead of Earth based bases.
Mars 1 seems a poorly selected political target for space development, because the obstacles are so very large they may absorb all the resources that could more quickly and effectively build a real space infrastructure. But watch, in the mantime, while many proponents of real space flight and technology manage to squeeze some funding out of the overall Mars 1 project.