The shortwave bands are also populated with numerous beacons which operate in this fashion - continuously broadcasting a short callsign either in morse, speech, hellschreiber or another basic scheme. The beacons are used to assess the constantly varying propogation in these bands.
So it would make sense to be nice to them I suppose.
Getting knocked around by the RIAA will probably make the students feel less inclined to purchase music legally.
Brits (Including Welsh, Scots, NI, et al) are truly the cosmopolitans of measuring systems.
I guess that the mix is more to do with circumstances. For example, when I'm cycling I tend to work exclusively in Km and km/h, because it's easier (well, at least to me, anyway). When I'm driving, I work in miles and m/h, because that's how the speed limits are defined. When I'm doing scientific type stuff (e.g. playing with satellites) I work exclusively in metric SI units because it's far easier and less prone to error. However, if you asked me my weight in stones/ounces I wouldn't be able to tell you.
So, yeah. A mix. However, I guess that it is more because of historic hangovers from imperial units rather then preference. A lot of the time when we work with imperial units it's just because it's convenient.
The PIN itself is stored in a memory location on the card's microprocessor inaccessible to the outside world.
My housemate did a fair amount of work into breaking UK chip and pin. His tutor group were set it as a research project by their tutor (who I now have as a lecturer).
They concluded that to get the PIN from the card, one would have to dissassemble the card and physically access the ROM. This is all well and good, but the card is designed in such a way that if it is taken apart, the internals are destroyed in the process.
...for satellite launches because it just isn't economic or safe.
It costs a lot more to put a satellite into a parking orbit with the shuttle, then with a traditional launch vehicle. Considerring that you still have to do a hoheman transfer after that, *and* a plane change (launches from Kennedy have a minimum inclination of 28 degrees, completely useless for geostationary satellites) there isn't really any advantage in using the shuttle.
There is certainly less risk involved in traditional launchers too. If it explodes at launch, you've lost a satellite and a launcher. If the shuttle is lost on launch/re-entry... well we just have to look at the Columbia for the results. Why take the risk when an unmanned launcher can do the job just as well, if not better?
If we take the Arianne launcher for example. It can put a geostationary satellite directly into a transfer orbit, negating a perigee burn and hence saving a *lot* of fuel. Further more, launches from French Guiana have a minimum inclination of 5 degrees, hence a plane change to acheive an equitorial orbit is much smaller, further reducing the fuel requirements.
There is even a launcher called SeaLaunch that is launched from the equator, completely removing the costly plane change.
Ah, but what if you want to put a satellite into an orbital inclination of more then 28 degrees? That's all well and good until you hit 46 degrees, the Russians can easily undersell NASA. Old ICBMs cost $200,000. A minute fraction of a shuttle launch.
With all these vastly cheaper, and often easier (especially SeaLaunch and Arianne) launch methods, it's no wonder NASA doesn't get a heck of a lot of business launching anything other then US military/government/scientific satellites.
The funniest thing I saw done with a steering lock was on a car-ferry. Someone actually put their steering lock on their camper to stop it being nicked! Whilst at sea!
Even worse was the fact it was a Stop-Lock (nicknamed a 'Go-Lock' because it is dead easy to remove).
Back in the olden days of POTS, myself and my mates were avid HL players and highly dependant on a low ping. We went to great lengths to obtain it - I even sheilded my phoneline in foil from the point at which it enters my house. Coupled with an underground phoneline (as opposed to the more common over-head lines that my friends had) I could squeeze a few more kbps and a few less ms from my connection.
After the BT trigger level fiasco and a leafletting campaign, we all graduated from POTS to the much harkened ADSL. I replaced my extension cord to my PC, fitted a router and micro-filters and helped my friends do the same. We then had to wait for The Great Switching On.
I was first alerted to the ADSL coming online when my CB radio started receiving large amounts of noise. The radio scanner went the same way too, with much of the LW, MW, HF and LVHF bands becoming unusable! There is less noise on the CB, but transmitting with it hoses the ADSL connection.
Luckily, ADSL causes problems over a much shorter range, but it does look like I will be getting the tin foil out again.
BT == Bloody Tyrants (or something more unpleasant)
My phone line from BT has a fault that causes POTS modems connected to it to die after 2-3 months service.
Slightly cheesed that BT was nuking my (BABT/BT approved) modems, I ring up their fault helpline and complain. The response: "BT is not required to provide a telephone line fit for data-communications to residential customers." WTF? They will still sell you internet access, but apparently they don't have to provide it!
Probably the complete lack of a working mobile phone network in the mountains was a good reason for this. Can't really see a mobile being a lot of use without one. They had to build an entire communications network.
They chose wi-fi because it is cheap, easy to install/maintain, relatively power efficient and available off the shelf.
wtf? I thought the point of the excerise was to discuss Windows for supercomputers?
Anywho... Who wants a bloated OS that runs as root by defualt, comes with a shedload of services enabled that no one ever wants or needs and is notoriously picky over users? Sure I can get Windows to run reliably. As long as I install ordinary (MS) applications and not try do anything creative. It is only user friendly as long as you are only a luser and not inclined to fiddle and tweak.
Supercomputers run just enough OS and overhead to run their jobs. Anything else makes the system inefficient. Supporting an interactive user interface is not only not required, but something to avoid like the plague in performance super computing. It is a little bit like air conditioning in a Formula 1 car. Utterly pointless and a waste of resources. Furthermore it is not possible to streamline the system because it is closed source!
Windows is simply not suited to the task in hand. It can't be tweaked, customised and streamlined to within an inch of its life without an adverse effect on reliability. It can't support thousands of processors or many seperate computers connected together to form a single entity (Beowulf).
Leave Windows to the lusers whilst others can cater for the tinkerers and researchers.
Just my 2p.
Re:Why is this a problem?
on
Freecache
·
· Score: 1
Going after the user who uploaded the problem is often a lot more time consuming and less likely to result in a conviction (matching usernames to ip address and timestamps).
Law enforcers would rather a stationary target that is easy to point at. It is even worse when technology becomes involved because FUD seems to pass as evidence (e.g. starting a nuclear war from a DTMF phone, like WTF?).
Quite often, society does this too (read: Marilyn Manson and Columbine, Eminem and gun crime, J.K. Rowling and satanism/witchcraft). Any easily identifiable party runs the risk of being blamed for something that is not their fault, simply because they are connected in some way. It's just the way people's minds work.
Trying to convey messages in Spam would probably be uphill work. It's bad enough trying to find real emails in my Inbox! Imagine trying to find an email that looks like spam in an Inbox full of the stuff! It would be like looking for a particular piece of hay in a haystack.
For communications where destination and partly the origin are to be obfuscated, short-wave radio works exceptionally well and is suited to covert spies as special equipment is not required to receive the transmissions (any old SW radio will do). Encryption is acheived using a one-time pad normally.
Slashdot Mirror
The shortwave bands are also populated with numerous beacons which operate in this fashion - continuously broadcasting a short callsign either in morse, speech, hellschreiber or another basic scheme. The beacons are used to assess the constantly varying propogation in these bands.
So it would make sense to be nice to them I suppose. Getting knocked around by the RIAA will probably make the students feel less inclined to purchase music legally.
Yeah, but the ping is astronomical.
Brits (Including Welsh, Scots, NI, et al) are truly the cosmopolitans of measuring systems.
I guess that the mix is more to do with circumstances. For example, when I'm cycling I tend to work exclusively in Km and km/h, because it's easier (well, at least to me, anyway). When I'm driving, I work in miles and m/h, because that's how the speed limits are defined. When I'm doing scientific type stuff (e.g. playing with satellites) I work exclusively in metric SI units because it's far easier and less prone to error. However, if you asked me my weight in stones/ounces I wouldn't be able to tell you.
So, yeah. A mix. However, I guess that it is more because of historic hangovers from imperial units rather then preference. A lot of the time when we work with imperial units it's just because it's convenient.
The PIN itself is stored in a memory location on the card's microprocessor inaccessible to the outside world.
My housemate did a fair amount of work into breaking UK chip and pin. His tutor group were set it as a research project by their tutor (who I now have as a lecturer).
They concluded that to get the PIN from the card, one would have to dissassemble the card and physically access the ROM. This is all well and good, but the card is designed in such a way that if it is taken apart, the internals are destroyed in the process.
...for satellite launches because it just isn't economic or safe. It costs a lot more to put a satellite into a parking orbit with the shuttle, then with a traditional launch vehicle. Considerring that you still have to do a hoheman transfer after that, *and* a plane change (launches from Kennedy have a minimum inclination of 28 degrees, completely useless for geostationary satellites) there isn't really any advantage in using the shuttle. There is certainly less risk involved in traditional launchers too. If it explodes at launch, you've lost a satellite and a launcher. If the shuttle is lost on launch/re-entry... well we just have to look at the Columbia for the results. Why take the risk when an unmanned launcher can do the job just as well, if not better? If we take the Arianne launcher for example. It can put a geostationary satellite directly into a transfer orbit, negating a perigee burn and hence saving a *lot* of fuel. Further more, launches from French Guiana have a minimum inclination of 5 degrees, hence a plane change to acheive an equitorial orbit is much smaller, further reducing the fuel requirements. There is even a launcher called SeaLaunch that is launched from the equator, completely removing the costly plane change. Ah, but what if you want to put a satellite into an orbital inclination of more then 28 degrees? That's all well and good until you hit 46 degrees, the Russians can easily undersell NASA. Old ICBMs cost $200,000. A minute fraction of a shuttle launch. With all these vastly cheaper, and often easier (especially SeaLaunch and Arianne) launch methods, it's no wonder NASA doesn't get a heck of a lot of business launching anything other then US military/government/scientific satellites.
...that should read "Aliens Reign over India."
Imagine what you will know tomorrow...
-K, Men in Black.
Nothing escapes my quote radar. ^_^
Rob.
The funniest thing I saw done with a steering lock was on a car-ferry. Someone actually put their steering lock on their camper to stop it being nicked! Whilst at sea! Even worse was the fact it was a Stop-Lock (nicknamed a 'Go-Lock' because it is dead easy to remove).
It's not only BPL that does it.
Back in the olden days of POTS, myself and my mates were avid HL players and highly dependant on a low ping. We went to great lengths to obtain it - I even sheilded my phoneline in foil from the point at which it enters my house. Coupled with an underground phoneline (as opposed to the more common over-head lines that my friends had) I could squeeze a few more kbps and a few less ms from my connection.
After the BT trigger level fiasco and a leafletting campaign, we all graduated from POTS to the much harkened ADSL. I replaced my extension cord to my PC, fitted a router and micro-filters and helped my friends do the same. We then had to wait for The Great Switching On.
I was first alerted to the ADSL coming online when my CB radio started receiving large amounts of noise. The radio scanner went the same way too, with much of the LW, MW, HF and LVHF bands becoming unusable! There is less noise on the CB, but transmitting with it hoses the ADSL connection.
Luckily, ADSL causes problems over a much shorter range, but it does look like I will be getting the tin foil out again.
A bogon field detector is also useful in detecting the presence of Windows NT.
BT == Bloody Tyrants
(or something more unpleasant)
My phone line from BT has a fault that causes POTS modems connected to it to die after 2-3 months service.
Slightly cheesed that BT was nuking my (BABT/BT approved) modems, I ring up their fault helpline and complain. The response: "BT is not required to provide a telephone line fit for data-communications to residential customers." WTF? They will still sell you internet access, but apparently they don't have to provide it!
Probably the complete lack of a working mobile phone network in the mountains was a good reason for this. Can't really see a mobile being a lot of use without one. They had to build an entire communications network.
They chose wi-fi because it is cheap, easy to install/maintain, relatively power efficient and available off the shelf.
wtf? I thought the point of the excerise was to discuss Windows for supercomputers?
Anywho... Who wants a bloated OS that runs as root by defualt, comes with a shedload of services enabled that no one ever wants or needs and is notoriously picky over users? Sure I can get Windows to run reliably. As long as I install ordinary (MS) applications and not try do anything creative. It is only user friendly as long as you are only a luser and not inclined to fiddle and tweak.
Supercomputers run just enough OS and overhead to run their jobs. Anything else makes the system inefficient. Supporting an interactive user interface is not only not required, but something to avoid like the plague in performance super computing. It is a little bit like air conditioning in a Formula 1 car. Utterly pointless and a waste of resources. Furthermore it is not possible to streamline the system because it is closed source!
Windows is simply not suited to the task in hand. It can't be tweaked, customised and streamlined to within an inch of its life without an adverse effect on reliability. It can't support thousands of processors or many seperate computers connected together to form a single entity (Beowulf).
Leave Windows to the lusers whilst others can cater for the tinkerers and researchers.
Just my 2p.
Going after the user who uploaded the problem is often a lot more time consuming and less likely to result in a conviction (matching usernames to ip address and timestamps).
Law enforcers would rather a stationary target that is easy to point at. It is even worse when technology becomes involved because FUD seems to pass as evidence (e.g. starting a nuclear war from a DTMF phone, like WTF?).
Quite often, society does this too (read: Marilyn Manson and Columbine, Eminem and gun crime, J.K. Rowling and satanism/witchcraft). Any easily identifiable party runs the risk of being blamed for something that is not their fault, simply because they are connected in some way. It's just the way people's minds work.
Trying to convey messages in Spam would probably be uphill work. It's bad enough trying to find real emails in my Inbox! Imagine trying to find an email that looks like spam in an Inbox full of the stuff! It would be like looking for a particular piece of hay in a haystack.
For communications where destination and partly the origin are to be obfuscated, short-wave radio works exceptionally well and is suited to covert spies as special equipment is not required to receive the transmissions (any old SW radio will do). Encryption is acheived using a one-time pad normally.