To parent and grandparent, I think greatgrandparent (#28646407) is making a reverse In Korea only old people use XYZ joke.
Tech topic XYZ comes up, people discuss, then someone says "In Korea only old people use XYZ," a classic troll.
So here at slashdot the most popular XYZ is Linux, so only old people in Korea use Linux according to the troll, and of course all the cool people who count use Windows!
I think I'm reading it right. GGP is baiting someone to say "Oh you're wrong, lots of people in Korea use Linux (or OSX or BSD or whatever)!"
I don't think it works like that, but I'm not an economist. I think the catch here was that the future price of the oil sitting in the ground went up massively, because there aren't any ways to increase the supply before it runs out. I believe articles like this Rolling Stone article peddle quasi-economic arguments, looking for correlations then asserting cause/effect without proving it.
I have to make an errata of sorts, Goldman Sachs not only didn't go bankrupt they actually profited heavily from the crash in the subprime market... kind of takes the edge off half my comments.
There is a long article in Rolling Stone [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine] magazine this month, The Great American Bubble Machine, alleging that banks control the U.S. government and that Goldman Sachs is one of the leaders of the corruption. Anyone wanting to know more about how the financial corruption of the U.S. government is operated should read the article. The article alleges that Goldman Sachs will use any manipulation whatsoever to get money.
I've only skimmed the article and watched one video, but AFAIK the oil price was high for good reason--we'd finally reached the point where demand pushes the price up very steeply--because the Saudis literally couldn't get the stuff out of the ground fast enough. For 6-12 months before the crash in October there were repeated attempts by Bush Jr. to get the Saudis to increase output, and they claimed they really couldn't, but about 6 months before the crash they upped output by as much as they could, about 25%. All figures and dates are off the top of my head and probably wildly off, but the picture is roughly correct. We effectively hit an oil crisis 12 months before the meltdown.
The oil price lost 75% during the crash, and I believe that's because the Demand/Supply curve was so steep, when demand dropped during the economic meltdown, the Oil price dropped by an accelerated amount. I believe Matt Taibbi (RS writer) is trying to show that this drop was caused by GS going bankrupt and no longer being able to rip off the market. It is naive to believe that GS couldn't still game the market after they went bankrupt if they were before they went bankrupt.
I have no idea whether there are speculator limiting rules in the US and world commodity markets, and have no idea whether Goldman Sachs got around those limits quietly. The fact that oil went "through 27 stages of ownership" before going to the gas pump means nothing frankly. That ownership of oil is wrapped in a complex series of financial products doesn't change anything. His article probably goes on to show that that's how GS got around commodity trading rules, but...
I get the feeling that this is all conspiracy theory bullshit.
He also said that GS was making stacks of cash by "grossly overreporting the value of Tech stocks," malevolently tricking the investing public into handing over their cash for trash. It's well known that all Tech stock is overpriced, and for good reason, people are willing to take a bigger gamble on Tech stock, we're in the Tech Age after all. Again, I feel this is just bullshit.
Sorry for not RTFA fully, but the Rolling Stone article is off topic anyway.
There's no easy workaround that will both allow you to have a history, and allow web pages to display something different (e.g. link colour / style) for pages that you have visited already.
Sure there is. Have your browser always pull the visited and unvisited styles, then just display the relevant one. Problem solved.
Exactly, if the visited/unvisited pseudoclasses are pulled/suppressed when the textcolor is being read, this particular site would no longer be able to read people's history. This should be easy to implement in a Firefox extension.
There would be no loss of usability, although some "pretty" scripts might not function correctly, eg, a script that fades a link colour to a different colour triggered by an onmouseover event.
This may not cover the security hole, because there are probably other ways of getting the text colour, perhaps using Canvas in Firefox.
I'm guessing every hole in this solution could be covered, but I don't work on Firefox.
The other browsers should be able to be "fixed" too.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you don't mean "practical use" in strictest sense, but mean Studying extragalactic planets won't tell you anything new about planets OR galaxies. Practical use in the strictest sense means "will studying extragalactic planets help make U.S. cars go faster than Japanese cars?"
I'm going by common sense and your replies #28282815 and #28292481.
All I can say is that there may be billions of planets in our own galaxy, but eventually we may want to study billions of billions of planets, study the really weird ones, the ones that are as unusual as supernovae. That's one reason to study extragalactic planets. Another reason I can think of is studying the distribution of planets within galaxies--we can get a much better overall picture of other galaxies, as we have a terrible view of our own. That's a really good reason actually, the first reason might become relevant within 50 years, the second within 10 years.
In short, no. Going to the moon told us a lot about Earth's geology (it provided strong evidence for the Theia theory IIRC), studying the sun helps us with communications, especially protecting satellites, and that's about it. Studying Jupiter and Saturn means f*ck all. Anything else in Astronomy is irrelevant.
Hardly any ice has every come off the external tank--it's always foam, forced off by ice growing between the foam and the internal tank structure. One of the big changes since Columbia has been to stop ice getting between the structure and the foam, and get rid of unnecessary foam.
The chunk of foam that doomed Columbia was designed as an aero device--it cleaned the airflow around the struts that attached the external tank to the nose of the shuttle. They simply got rid of it, it did little and posed a significant risk to all shuttle flights.
Ice did come off Apollo, it had no insulation on the outside.
There's certainly enough orbital energy (KE+PE) in the HST orbit to match the ISS orbit, in fact one at the ISS height but at a different plane has just the right amount. The trouble is you have to do the plane change, you have to expend energy to increase the velocity perpendicular to the plane, but also expend energy to reduce the velocity along the orbit and in the up/down direction. You can't get paid back for the KE you're losing, and you can't transfer the KE from one axis to another.
It's partly to do with lack of external forces--there's really only gravity from the earth, and all that does is keep your orbit. All the shuttle has is a little internal energy (the RMS pods, a little compared to the energy needed), and to mother nature, it doesn't matter if this energy is used to speed up or slow down, because it's all relative to the shuttle. If you want a 1km/s increase, that's 1 km/s in one direction. If you want a decrease, it's 1 km/s in the opposite direction, but both those directions are same as far as the shuttle is concerned (in its frame of reference).
(When the shuttle de-orbits, the OMS gives it a little nudge so its periapsis is in the atmosphere, and from there it gets all its de-orbit engergy from friction. Basically the friction energy created during de-orbit is about the same as the energy used to put it up there. Hence they need really good heat shields!)
Quick calculations, for a plane change of 20 degs @ 30 km/s, you need to lose 1.8 km/s in the orbit direction (new vel = 30*cos(20)), and gain 10km/s at right angles to the orbit plane (30*sin(20)), which is about 11.5% of the KE for a 30 km/s orbit...
... and maybe 5% of the total energy to achieve that orbit. I haven't done the maths on that last one (it's just GMm*(1/r2-1/r1)), but apparently it's not doable. Seems so close though. Anyone know how much PE is in the OMS fuel compared to the launch fuel?
No, this begged the question "Has the reentry-vehicle-not-above-the-cryogenic-launch-vehicle configuration run its course". This was answered by the investigation into the 2003 Columbia accicdent, which concluded that the shuttle, the only vehicle to use this configuration, was flawed and experimental. It is vulnerable to the type of damage seen in STS-125, which is unnaceptable, so they are retiring the shuttles.
Rockets are fine, but the reentry vehicle must be above the rocket, because (a) the rocket is likely to throw off either frozen water or insulation at speeds that could damage the orbiter, and (b) you need to be able to pull away from the rocket at any time during launch in case of emergency.
To detect objects here, you would need to look at images taken over a series of months and centered on the points to find objects that didn't move with the rest of our perspective.
Months would do it, so too would hours! 2.5 min / hour.
This would probably need to be done by a space telescope, since by the time a ground based telescope could see the points, the sun is already rising or still setting.
They would set and rise at most 4 hours after the sun, plenty of time for 1x 1 hour exposure a day.
Even then, the objects are only half lit by the sun, due to our angle of viewing, so they would be especially dim.
Half-lit by the sun is no problem, this would only give them +0.75 Magnitudes (dimmer by a factor of 2).
In addition, sending a spacecraft to the area would allow the sattelites to determine the composition of the asteroids to see if they came from an Earth collision or are leftover from the solar system's birth.
You can still get composition information from asteroid spectra, they can put them into groups of composition types from that. If the spectra hasn't been observed before, it's best to have a sample.
I don't know what the problem with observing these points is, maybe the asteroids are likely too small.
Since the L4 and L5 points don't move relative to our perspective, any objects we would see there would move very little compared to the background of stars.
They'd move as fast as the sun does through the background stars, for obvious reasons! That's ~1 deg/day.
He's basically pointed out that stereographs can be viewed without equipment by "looking through" them, and stereographs are images, and images can be digitised, and digitized images can be displayed on most modern electronics, and the iPhone is one of these. Whoot.
Yeah, what's the deal with that? I use RAID on Intel P35, and that thing takes an age (10+ secs) to scan 6 SATA ports to find 2 HD's. Every bit of hardware wants its piece of the boot-up-screen-time, first the GFX, then basic HW detection (the bit where it says your CPU and RAM), then the aforementioned Intel RAID, then Gigabyte RAID (some Gigabyte mobos have a chip which supplies an extra couple of SATA ports plus PATA), then finally it looks for boot media. Sheesh.
One instant boot uses hybernate, so it will still "instant boot", the other uses sleep, so it will fail, and Windows will complain about not being shut down completely. The last point is an educated guess.
Yeah, they probably have rules about code reviews, and even middle management could have picked this hole (and thus be partly to blame). It's probably much easier on the server farm not to have authentication, although it wouldn't be that difficult to have separate 2 minute previews.
A design which does not stream the entire movie to a user before he's even paid any money could qualify as "not stupid".
Which would still, in no way, stop the user from copying the film.. which is the point of the article. I don't know where you got the idea that they were just trying to stop people from getting more than the teaser.
Err... yes it would. There are two "security" holes:
You can download the whole movie without paying any money
You can downdload the whole movie when you only pay for rental. You're supposed to pay ~4 times as much to have the right to download and save it.
#1 is obviously the bigger problem or "security hole", because I would guess that hardly anyone would pay to "rent" from Amazon, when they can just download the movie from P2P. Problem #1 means Amazon Movies on Demand are basically a mixture of YouTube and The Pirate Bay.
They could fix this by only streaming the first 2 mins for the free preview. Simple.
I follow F1 and read the site grandprix.com. The guys there are wealthy enough, but they're basically freelance journalists running an unadvertised site and going around with "the circus" (an insiders term for F1, they travel from city to city putting on their show). From time to time they bitch about the internet access costs and facilities, here's an example.
Each circuit pays for the running of the event, something in the vicinity of tens of millions, so you think they could fork out for decent low cost (or free) internet access for journalists, but it comes down to money, the journalists often have to buy access at the circuit (rather than go back to the hotel or use a mobile), and big media companies need to report it, so there you go. They have a monopoly over a few dozen journalists 20 times a year.
Probably the same at the Beijing Olympics, or maybe the issue of the Great Firewall and locals, as others have touched on.
That only indicates that you don't know what you are talking about either.
Well maybe... maybe you're just trolling.
Anyway, he seemed fair and balanced and based off all the things that are known about the shuttle.
Interesting that Soyuz, while viewed as being simpler and safer than the Shuttle has about the same safety record (2 fatal flights in ~100).
It's also well known that the Shuttle is much more reliable mechanically, because the contingency options (aborts) are much poorer for that system. <shrug>
Hmmm, I dunno if they're collectively on crack, but the article gives a figure for the payload to GTO (geostationary transfer orbit) for the Space Shuttle. The GTO is an elliptical orbit with one end at LEO and the other at geostationary orbit. As far as I know, the Shuttle can't do this orbit, and was never planned to do it. It only does LEO. (Side Note: Both the LEO and GTO figures for the space shuttle are uncited.)
As reported in Secunia, the SQL injection bug was found in Fully Modded phpBB on 12-Mar, see here.
The Fully Modded phpBB website is down, but it is basically a fork or extension of the base phpBB code, which remains secure.
I know I've labored the point about phpBB not being vulnerable to this kind of attack, but it really is built from the ground up for security. This exploit does not affect phpBB, just the heavily modified for "Fully Modded phpBB".
That's bullshit, phpBB was hit ~2-3 years ago with the self propogating worm Santy, which exploited a bug in a PHP function (unserialize IIRC). phpBB was essentially a victim--the bug was in PHP itself, and phpBB is a widely deployed open source BB, and the developers had removed all usage of the compromised function after the bug was disclosed and before the Santy worm hit. (Site owners who failed to upgrade were hit, a large percentage.)
I haven't heard of any glaring security issues with phpBB before or since, excluding the odd SEC fix. phpBB isn't vulnerable to SQL injection tricks.
Slashdot Mirror
To parent and grandparent, I think greatgrandparent (#28646407) is making a reverse In Korea only old people use XYZ joke.
... I might go bait him now.
Tech topic XYZ comes up, people discuss, then someone says "In Korea only old people use XYZ," a classic troll.
So here at slashdot the most popular XYZ is Linux, so only old people in Korea use Linux according to the troll, and of course all the cool people who count use Windows!
I think I'm reading it right. GGP is baiting someone to say "Oh you're wrong, lots of people in Korea use Linux (or OSX or BSD or whatever)!"
I don't think it works like that, but I'm not an economist. I think the catch here was that the future price of the oil sitting in the ground went up massively, because there aren't any ways to increase the supply before it runs out. I believe articles like this Rolling Stone article peddle quasi-economic arguments, looking for correlations then asserting cause/effect without proving it.
I have to make an errata of sorts, Goldman Sachs not only didn't go bankrupt they actually profited heavily from the crash in the subprime market... kind of takes the edge off half my comments.
I've only skimmed the article and watched one video, but AFAIK the oil price was high for good reason--we'd finally reached the point where demand pushes the price up very steeply--because the Saudis literally couldn't get the stuff out of the ground fast enough. For 6-12 months before the crash in October there were repeated attempts by Bush Jr. to get the Saudis to increase output, and they claimed they really couldn't, but about 6 months before the crash they upped output by as much as they could, about 25%. All figures and dates are off the top of my head and probably wildly off, but the picture is roughly correct. We effectively hit an oil crisis 12 months before the meltdown.
The oil price lost 75% during the crash, and I believe that's because the Demand/Supply curve was so steep, when demand dropped during the economic meltdown, the Oil price dropped by an accelerated amount. I believe Matt Taibbi (RS writer) is trying to show that this drop was caused by GS going bankrupt and no longer being able to rip off the market. It is naive to believe that GS couldn't still game the market after they went bankrupt if they were before they went bankrupt.
I have no idea whether there are speculator limiting rules in the US and world commodity markets, and have no idea whether Goldman Sachs got around those limits quietly. The fact that oil went "through 27 stages of ownership" before going to the gas pump means nothing frankly. That ownership of oil is wrapped in a complex series of financial products doesn't change anything. His article probably goes on to show that that's how GS got around commodity trading rules, but...
I get the feeling that this is all conspiracy theory bullshit.
He also said that GS was making stacks of cash by "grossly overreporting the value of Tech stocks," malevolently tricking the investing public into handing over their cash for trash. It's well known that all Tech stock is overpriced, and for good reason, people are willing to take a bigger gamble on Tech stock, we're in the Tech Age after all. Again, I feel this is just bullshit.
Sorry for not RTFA fully, but the Rolling Stone article is off topic anyway.
Yeah, that would work. How about dropping the visited state on any attempt to read any text value?
Chances are the JS/DOM engine is sufficiently complex that it's impossible to cover this security hole.
Exactly, if the visited/unvisited pseudoclasses are pulled/suppressed when the textcolor is being read, this particular site would no longer be able to read people's history. This should be easy to implement in a Firefox extension.
There would be no loss of usability, although some "pretty" scripts might not function correctly, eg, a script that fades a link colour to a different colour triggered by an onmouseover event.
This may not cover the security hole, because there are probably other ways of getting the text colour, perhaps using Canvas in Firefox.
I'm guessing every hole in this solution could be covered, but I don't work on Firefox.
The other browsers should be able to be "fixed" too.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you don't mean "practical use" in strictest sense, but mean Studying extragalactic planets won't tell you anything new about planets OR galaxies. Practical use in the strictest sense means "will studying extragalactic planets help make U.S. cars go faster than Japanese cars?"
I'm going by common sense and your replies #28282815 and #28292481.
All I can say is that there may be billions of planets in our own galaxy, but eventually we may want to study billions of billions of planets, study the really weird ones, the ones that are as unusual as supernovae. That's one reason to study extragalactic planets. Another reason I can think of is studying the distribution of planets within galaxies--we can get a much better overall picture of other galaxies, as we have a terrible view of our own. That's a really good reason actually, the first reason might become relevant within 50 years, the second within 10 years.
In short, no. Going to the moon told us a lot about Earth's geology (it provided strong evidence for the Theia theory IIRC), studying the sun helps us with communications, especially protecting satellites, and that's about it. Studying Jupiter and Saturn means f*ck all. Anything else in Astronomy is irrelevant.
They'd probably only get Discovery out if both of them had a wing off. And yeah, the whole program would be scrapped when they got home.
Hardly any ice has every come off the external tank--it's always foam, forced off by ice growing between the foam and the internal tank structure. One of the big changes since Columbia has been to stop ice getting between the structure and the foam, and get rid of unnecessary foam.
The chunk of foam that doomed Columbia was designed as an aero device--it cleaned the airflow around the struts that attached the external tank to the nose of the shuttle. They simply got rid of it, it did little and posed a significant risk to all shuttle flights.
Ice did come off Apollo, it had no insulation on the outside.
There's certainly enough orbital energy (KE+PE) in the HST orbit to match the ISS orbit, in fact one at the ISS height but at a different plane has just the right amount. The trouble is you have to do the plane change, you have to expend energy to increase the velocity perpendicular to the plane, but also expend energy to reduce the velocity along the orbit and in the up/down direction. You can't get paid back for the KE you're losing, and you can't transfer the KE from one axis to another.
It's partly to do with lack of external forces--there's really only gravity from the earth, and all that does is keep your orbit. All the shuttle has is a little internal energy (the RMS pods, a little compared to the energy needed), and to mother nature, it doesn't matter if this energy is used to speed up or slow down, because it's all relative to the shuttle. If you want a 1km/s increase, that's 1 km/s in one direction. If you want a decrease, it's 1 km/s in the opposite direction, but both those directions are same as far as the shuttle is concerned (in its frame of reference).
(When the shuttle de-orbits, the OMS gives it a little nudge so its periapsis is in the atmosphere, and from there it gets all its de-orbit engergy from friction. Basically the friction energy created during de-orbit is about the same as the energy used to put it up there. Hence they need really good heat shields!)
Quick calculations, for a plane change of 20 degs @ 30 km/s, you need to lose 1.8 km/s in the orbit direction (new vel = 30*cos(20)), and gain 10km/s at right angles to the orbit plane (30*sin(20)), which is about 11.5% of the KE for a 30 km/s orbit...
... and maybe 5% of the total energy to achieve that orbit. I haven't done the maths on that last one (it's just GMm*(1/r2-1/r1)), but apparently it's not doable. Seems so close though. Anyone know how much PE is in the OMS fuel compared to the launch fuel?
No, this begged the question "Has the reentry-vehicle-not-above-the-cryogenic-launch-vehicle configuration run its course". This was answered by the investigation into the 2003 Columbia accicdent, which concluded that the shuttle, the only vehicle to use this configuration, was flawed and experimental. It is vulnerable to the type of damage seen in STS-125, which is unnaceptable, so they are retiring the shuttles.
Rockets are fine, but the reentry vehicle must be above the rocket, because (a) the rocket is likely to throw off either frozen water or insulation at speeds that could damage the orbiter, and (b) you need to be able to pull away from the rocket at any time during launch in case of emergency.
Months would do it, so too would hours! 2.5 min / hour.
They would set and rise at most 4 hours after the sun, plenty of time for 1x 1 hour exposure a day.
Half-lit by the sun is no problem, this would only give them +0.75 Magnitudes (dimmer by a factor of 2).
You can still get composition information from asteroid spectra, they can put them into groups of composition types from that. If the spectra hasn't been observed before, it's best to have a sample.
I don't know what the problem with observing these points is, maybe the asteroids are likely too small.
They'd move as fast as the sun does through the background stars, for obvious reasons! That's ~1 deg/day.
He's basically pointed out that stereographs can be viewed without equipment by "looking through" them, and stereographs are images, and images can be digitised, and digitized images can be displayed on most modern electronics, and the iPhone is one of these. Whoot.
Yeah, what's the deal with that? I use RAID on Intel P35, and that thing takes an age (10+ secs) to scan 6 SATA ports to find 2 HD's. Every bit of hardware wants its piece of the boot-up-screen-time, first the GFX, then basic HW detection (the bit where it says your CPU and RAM), then the aforementioned Intel RAID, then Gigabyte RAID (some Gigabyte mobos have a chip which supplies an extra couple of SATA ports plus PATA), then finally it looks for boot media. Sheesh.
One instant boot uses hybernate, so it will still "instant boot", the other uses sleep, so it will fail, and Windows will complain about not being shut down completely. The last point is an educated guess.
Yeah, they probably have rules about code reviews, and even middle management could have picked this hole (and thus be partly to blame). It's probably much easier on the server farm not to have authentication, although it wouldn't be that difficult to have separate 2 minute previews.
Err... yes it would. There are two "security" holes:
#1 is obviously the bigger problem or "security hole", because I would guess that hardly anyone would pay to "rent" from Amazon, when they can just download the movie from P2P. Problem #1 means Amazon Movies on Demand are basically a mixture of YouTube and The Pirate Bay.
They could fix this by only streaming the first 2 mins for the free preview. Simple.
I follow F1 and read the site grandprix.com. The guys there are wealthy enough, but they're basically freelance journalists running an unadvertised site and going around with "the circus" (an insiders term for F1, they travel from city to city putting on their show). From time to time they bitch about the internet access costs and facilities, here's an example.
Each circuit pays for the running of the event, something in the vicinity of tens of millions, so you think they could fork out for decent low cost (or free) internet access for journalists, but it comes down to money, the journalists often have to buy access at the circuit (rather than go back to the hotel or use a mobile), and big media companies need to report it, so there you go. They have a monopoly over a few dozen journalists 20 times a year.
Probably the same at the Beijing Olympics, or maybe the issue of the Great Firewall and locals, as others have touched on.
Holy sh*t you do know what you're talking about!
Well maybe... maybe you're just trolling.
Anyway, he seemed fair and balanced and based off all the things that are known about the shuttle.
Interesting that Soyuz, while viewed as being simpler and safer than the Shuttle has about the same safety record (2 fatal flights in ~100).
It's also well known that the Shuttle is much more reliable mechanically, because the contingency options (aborts) are much poorer for that system. <shrug>
Well, I read his whole post, and it seems he does have a clue. Idiot.
Hmmm, I dunno if they're collectively on crack, but the article gives a figure for the payload to GTO (geostationary transfer orbit) for the Space Shuttle. The GTO is an elliptical orbit with one end at LEO and the other at geostationary orbit. As far as I know, the Shuttle can't do this orbit, and was never planned to do it. It only does LEO. (Side Note: Both the LEO and GTO figures for the space shuttle are uncited.)
The Fully Modded phpBB website is down, but it is basically a fork or extension of the base phpBB code, which remains secure.
I know I've labored the point about phpBB not being vulnerable to this kind of attack, but it really is built from the ground up for security. This exploit does not affect phpBB, just the heavily modified for "Fully Modded phpBB".
I haven't heard of any glaring security issues with phpBB before or since, excluding the odd SEC fix. phpBB isn't vulnerable to SQL injection tricks.