"You guessed wrong."
"You only think we guessed wrong. That's what's so funny! We switched laptops when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against three high-profile security researchers when a laptop is on the line! Ahahahahaha! Ahahahaha! Ahaha-"
"And to think, all that time it was your laptop that had malware."
"They both had malware. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to blue pills."
No. Lift is a way of producing motion relative to the medium through which the plane is passing. Drag is a way of reducing motion relative to the medium through which the plane is passing. The air is not going up, but lift makes the plane go up. The air is not going forward, and drag makes the plane not go forward.
Drag is more important for fuel consumption. Less weight means that they could potentially fly more slowly and still stay aloft, but that would increase travel times, so you're not going to see it happen. My guess is that they can reduce the profile of the airfoil (reducing the lift), and thus reduce drag some, which will decrease fuel consumption, but it is a somewhat indirect step from lower weight to lower fuel consumption.
The lower weight might have the effect of worsening the effects of turbulence as well. I would not put it past airlines to artificially weight these planes down in order to counteract that. I don't think that they will, but I would not be surprised if they did.
Sorry to be an ass, but I'm curious as to where you're from. Everywhere I've ever lived, buying knives is perfectly legal, provided the buyer is of age and the knife is small enough (ie not a sword). Furthermore, just about everyone that I know who has knives (both of the kitchen variety and otherwise), uses them solely for legal purposes. Of course, I grew up going through Boy Scouts, where everyone has a swiss army knife, and uses it all the time for a wide variety of (legal and legitimate) things. I guess in gang-ridden areas or inner cities, illegal knife usage might dominate, but other than that very narrow and restricted environment, not so much, AFAICT.
Good quality kitchen utensils (Henckels and up) are expensive because the process to make them is difficult and expensive. Cheap kitchen utensils are, well, cheap. A set of five knives (chef's, carving, boning, utility, paring) plus a cutting board can be had at Walmart for $2.50 (a couple years ago, that is). So quite honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about on any front.
I think that by referring to the students as the University's "interests", the GP was trying to put across the point that, although you are right that the University has no legal obligation to defend the students, they may very well have an economic obligation to defend the students. And a lot of people (excluding myself) would tell you that having an economic obligation means that they have a moral obligation as well.
Elektra records wasn't suing anyone for file sharing when The Doors signed with them, for example. After signing, the bands don't have any right to decide what to do with their music. The record company owns their music once the signature is on the contract. The "indie" scene didn't exist when they were making the kind of music that I find worth listening to. So there isn't any "free" music of the variety I'm interested in (except for the Grateful Dead, of course).
they would have nothing to worry about (regardless of how overblown the punishment is) if they simply didn't pirate.
Yestheywould, strictly speaking. The RIAA has apparently very little concern for whether or not it hits actual copyright infringers, and everyone it hits still has to show up in court and in the press, or settle out of court for an amount of money they very probably don't have to spare.
Click the picture.;-)
I couldn't, because the giant popup boxes that appeared every time I moused over anything on the page gave me an aneurysm before I could get there. One of the worst pages I've seen in a while.
How does the existence of plugins interfere with your desire for a simple browser? If you don't want any plugins or extensions or anything, then don't install any! Really, it is just that easy.
Perhaps I should have clarified. I am not discounting the use of Occam's Razor simply because it is philosophy, but rather because it is philosophy which is not directly part of the foundations of science. The mere fact that it is useful does not make it part of science proper. Even if it is absolutely right, it still remains not part of science.
A simpler theory might nonetheless be wrong. It might explain all of the available data perfectly, and be simpler than any other theory which did the same, but turn out, upon the addition of more data, to be quite wrong, whereas one of the less simple theories remains intact. You would tell me that the simpler theory was unequivocally the better one (at least at the time), even though it turned out to have essentially no truth value. This leads me to believe that you are using a metric for theory "goodness" which is not based upon the truth value of the theory. I am afraid that I cannot see the utility of such a metric, as science is a search for truth, in the end. Either that, or the original formulation of the Razor is simply wrong, and therefore should be avoided unless you know you are using it in a limited case in which it is not wrong.
You have misunderstood me badly, sir. I did not, never have, and never will claim that young earth creationism is an equivalent to big bang theory (or other scientific theories of cosmology). However, I stand by my statement that science itself cannot distinguish between the two, precisely because young earth creationism is non-science. Philosophy which is not part of the foundations of science offers any number of ready tools to distinguish between the two, the most common, useful, and probably true of which is Occam's Razor. But, if all you start with are the smallest number of statements needed to have science (the philosophical foundations of science), combined with the available data on the universe, then you will find that you are unable to deduce either big bang theory or young earth creationism, and neither are you able to exclude either of those two. From a logical standpoint, the truth of big band theory and young earth creationism is undecidable given only science and available data. However, since I do hold a large number of statements which are outside the foundations of science to be true, I can distinguish between young earth creationism and big band theory. I think that young earth creationism is fairly dumb. But I don't claim that I think that because of science; to do so would be to lie.
Occam's Razor is a useful philosophical tool. It is not science. Furthermore, Occam's Razor doesn't say that a simpler theory is a better theory, especially not unequivocally so, it merely says that a simpler theory is likely to be a better theory.
Claiming that there is in fact a scientific basis for believing in the big bang versus young earth creationism (made to look like there was a big bang) is silly. There is a fairly sound philosophical basis, but no purely scientific basis at all.
The simple ramifications of quantum mechanics and relativity gave us quite a lot of our current materials science. Take a class on solid state physics if you don't believe me. There is really an awful lot of QM and SR there. However, there are still materials which we don't understand yet, which require more sophisticated and less approximate models from QM and SR, and perhaps even some input from better fundamental physics that QM (which we may or may not have yet). So, referencing QM and SR does not restrict the reference to HEP. These two and their future developments are very relevant to materials science and materials science research. As GP said, the basic ramifications of them have been worked out (regarding materials science), giving us a good understanding of things like crystalline metals and semiconductors (along with a lot of other things, too). But since there are still some things in materials science which are unexplained, the more difficult ramifications must be explored, too. These more difficult ramifications are, well, more difficult to explore, resulting in significantly higher research costs.
Not-verbatim quote, unknown (to me) source: "Half a century ago, it was easy for a second rate physicist to do first rate work. Now it is quite difficult for a first rate physicist to do second rate work." New work is just simply harder these days, across all branches of physics.
I killed a keyboard with nothing but water once, and it was not plugged in until fully dry. A drop or two got in between layers of plastic membrane with circuit traces on them, and corroded the traces until there was not enough left to conduct anymore. I'd opt for a fast dry method (like using compressed air) over the air dry method, as the longer the water sits there, the more likely it is that you will have damage from the water.
OTOH, I have no idea what kind of shit was in the water in Waco, TX, where I was at the time. There are a lot of dairy farms upstream, and I'm pretty sure that the tap water is not quite legally potable, so it might have been the solutes in the water that caused the corrosion instead of the water itself...
Apache is capable of writing logs to disk, without causing the sorts of problems you are talking about. This is all the judge is asking for, not the entire contents of RAM at all times. She is saying "You have the needed (and relatively small in size) information at one point in time, so while you've got it, write it to a persistent record." Not "Every bit that changes in your RAM must be recorded". If Apache can write logs, then Torrentspy can write logs containing very similar information, too.
But HTTP underneath SSL/TLS which happens to be tunneled inside of plain HTTP (or any other "legitmate" protocol) would still not be blocked. No matter what, to have perfect (or, I would say, even adequate) filtering, they would have to be omniscient regarding the intention behind the contents of all packets. Or just unplug everything.
Not so. The plane of the ecliptic and the galactic equator are offset from one another by about 62 degrees. [1] So it would appear that there is probably wide variation in the tilt of the ecliptic planes of other stellar systems.
Or, a naive argument from astrophysics (IANA astrophysicist, although I am a physicist): Perhaps the disk of a new-formed star is typically rather thin (in the direction perpendicular to the ecliptic). Then material undergoing gravitational accretion to form planets would all come from essentially one plane, so the angular momentum would be perpendicular to that plane (Newtonian physics: take any number of masses with positions and velocities all solely in one plane. The angular momentum about any point will be perpendicular to that plane). The galaxy, on the other hand, is quite thick, even out here in the fringes. The nebulae that we can see are not planar, and are not even larger in the galactic plane or anything. They are fairly isotropic. So, as a nebula condenses to become a star, the material comes from all directions and has velocities going in all directions. The angular momentum could be all over the place.
So, if there isn't anything wrong with this naive argument (although there quite likely is, even if it doesn't invalidate the conclusion), then we should expect that stars should have ecliptics lying at all kinds of angles to the galactic equatorial plane. The angle of our own ecliptic is a single data point which would seem to support this notion.
We probably are actually quite interested in planets with rotational axes lying not perpendicular to their ecliptics. Not as Earth 2.0, but for scientific study, they should be rather interesting. How do they form? Are they typically captured rogue planets? Is there such a thing as a rogue planet? Or do they merely form from thicker solar disks? Or, did Aliens (TM) put them there as signals to us for when we become a mature enough species to understand them?:)
Slashdot Mirror
"You guessed wrong."
"You only think we guessed wrong. That's what's so funny! We switched laptops when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against three high-profile security researchers when a laptop is on the line! Ahahahahaha! Ahahahaha! Ahaha-"
"And to think, all that time it was your laptop that had malware."
"They both had malware. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to blue pills."
Better yet: no power supply. Heck, it's all just silicon, why not use a sheet of glass instead?
No. Lift is a way of producing motion relative to the medium through which the plane is passing. Drag is a way of reducing motion relative to the medium through which the plane is passing. The air is not going up, but lift makes the plane go up. The air is not going forward, and drag makes the plane not go forward.
Drag is more important for fuel consumption. Less weight means that they could potentially fly more slowly and still stay aloft, but that would increase travel times, so you're not going to see it happen. My guess is that they can reduce the profile of the airfoil (reducing the lift), and thus reduce drag some, which will decrease fuel consumption, but it is a somewhat indirect step from lower weight to lower fuel consumption.
The lower weight might have the effect of worsening the effects of turbulence as well. I would not put it past airlines to artificially weight these planes down in order to counteract that. I don't think that they will, but I would not be surprised if they did.
It is possible that maybe the Hebrews didn't do such things. The Bible, after all, only claims that they made bricks.
The KGB did it! Quick! Search Hans' car for Polonium!
Sorry to be an ass, but I'm curious as to where you're from. Everywhere I've ever lived, buying knives is perfectly legal, provided the buyer is of age and the knife is small enough (ie not a sword). Furthermore, just about everyone that I know who has knives (both of the kitchen variety and otherwise), uses them solely for legal purposes. Of course, I grew up going through Boy Scouts, where everyone has a swiss army knife, and uses it all the time for a wide variety of (legal and legitimate) things. I guess in gang-ridden areas or inner cities, illegal knife usage might dominate, but other than that very narrow and restricted environment, not so much, AFAICT.
Good quality kitchen utensils (Henckels and up) are expensive because the process to make them is difficult and expensive. Cheap kitchen utensils are, well, cheap. A set of five knives (chef's, carving, boning, utility, paring) plus a cutting board can be had at Walmart for $2.50 (a couple years ago, that is). So quite honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about on any front.
I think that by referring to the students as the University's "interests", the GP was trying to put across the point that, although you are right that the University has no legal obligation to defend the students, they may very well have an economic obligation to defend the students. And a lot of people (excluding myself) would tell you that having an economic obligation means that they have a moral obligation as well.
Elektra records wasn't suing anyone for file sharing when The Doors signed with them, for example. After signing, the bands don't have any right to decide what to do with their music. The record company owns their music once the signature is on the contract. The "indie" scene didn't exist when they were making the kind of music that I find worth listening to. So there isn't any "free" music of the variety I'm interested in (except for the Grateful Dead, of course).
Yes they would, strictly speaking. The RIAA has apparently very little concern for whether or not it hits actual copyright infringers, and everyone it hits still has to show up in court and in the press, or settle out of court for an amount of money they very probably don't have to spare.
I suspect you're thinking of the 8th son of an 8th son of an 8th son, ie a Sourcerer
IIRC, one of the XP service packs added a firewall. That's functionality. (Oh Lord, why am I arguing on MS's side here?)
Click the picture. ;-)
I couldn't, because the giant popup boxes that appeared every time I moused over anything on the page gave me an aneurysm before I could get there. One of the worst pages I've seen in a while.
This is funny! Not a troll! Worth a good laugh, and therefore deserving of a few +1, funny mods. Mods: please don't take yourselves too seriously.
How does the existence of plugins interfere with your desire for a simple browser? If you don't want any plugins or extensions or anything, then don't install any! Really, it is just that easy.
Perhaps I should have clarified. I am not discounting the use of Occam's Razor simply because it is philosophy, but rather because it is philosophy which is not directly part of the foundations of science. The mere fact that it is useful does not make it part of science proper. Even if it is absolutely right, it still remains not part of science.
A simpler theory might nonetheless be wrong. It might explain all of the available data perfectly, and be simpler than any other theory which did the same, but turn out, upon the addition of more data, to be quite wrong, whereas one of the less simple theories remains intact. You would tell me that the simpler theory was unequivocally the better one (at least at the time), even though it turned out to have essentially no truth value. This leads me to believe that you are using a metric for theory "goodness" which is not based upon the truth value of the theory. I am afraid that I cannot see the utility of such a metric, as science is a search for truth, in the end. Either that, or the original formulation of the Razor is simply wrong, and therefore should be avoided unless you know you are using it in a limited case in which it is not wrong.
You have misunderstood me badly, sir. I did not, never have, and never will claim that young earth creationism is an equivalent to big bang theory (or other scientific theories of cosmology). However, I stand by my statement that science itself cannot distinguish between the two, precisely because young earth creationism is non-science. Philosophy which is not part of the foundations of science offers any number of ready tools to distinguish between the two, the most common, useful, and probably true of which is Occam's Razor. But, if all you start with are the smallest number of statements needed to have science (the philosophical foundations of science), combined with the available data on the universe, then you will find that you are unable to deduce either big bang theory or young earth creationism, and neither are you able to exclude either of those two. From a logical standpoint, the truth of big band theory and young earth creationism is undecidable given only science and available data. However, since I do hold a large number of statements which are outside the foundations of science to be true, I can distinguish between young earth creationism and big band theory. I think that young earth creationism is fairly dumb. But I don't claim that I think that because of science; to do so would be to lie.
Occam's Razor is a useful philosophical tool. It is not science. Furthermore, Occam's Razor doesn't say that a simpler theory is a better theory, especially not unequivocally so, it merely says that a simpler theory is likely to be a better theory.
Claiming that there is in fact a scientific basis for believing in the big bang versus young earth creationism (made to look like there was a big bang) is silly. There is a fairly sound philosophical basis, but no purely scientific basis at all.
The simple ramifications of quantum mechanics and relativity gave us quite a lot of our current materials science. Take a class on solid state physics if you don't believe me. There is really an awful lot of QM and SR there. However, there are still materials which we don't understand yet, which require more sophisticated and less approximate models from QM and SR, and perhaps even some input from better fundamental physics that QM (which we may or may not have yet). So, referencing QM and SR does not restrict the reference to HEP. These two and their future developments are very relevant to materials science and materials science research. As GP said, the basic ramifications of them have been worked out (regarding materials science), giving us a good understanding of things like crystalline metals and semiconductors (along with a lot of other things, too). But since there are still some things in materials science which are unexplained, the more difficult ramifications must be explored, too. These more difficult ramifications are, well, more difficult to explore, resulting in significantly higher research costs.
Not-verbatim quote, unknown (to me) source: "Half a century ago, it was easy for a second rate physicist to do first rate work. Now it is quite difficult for a first rate physicist to do second rate work." New work is just simply harder these days, across all branches of physics.
I killed a keyboard with nothing but water once, and it was not plugged in until fully dry. A drop or two got in between layers of plastic membrane with circuit traces on them, and corroded the traces until there was not enough left to conduct anymore. I'd opt for a fast dry method (like using compressed air) over the air dry method, as the longer the water sits there, the more likely it is that you will have damage from the water.
OTOH, I have no idea what kind of shit was in the water in Waco, TX, where I was at the time. There are a lot of dairy farms upstream, and I'm pretty sure that the tap water is not quite legally potable, so it might have been the solutes in the water that caused the corrosion instead of the water itself...
Apache is capable of writing logs to disk, without causing the sorts of problems you are talking about. This is all the judge is asking for, not the entire contents of RAM at all times. She is saying "You have the needed (and relatively small in size) information at one point in time, so while you've got it, write it to a persistent record." Not "Every bit that changes in your RAM must be recorded". If Apache can write logs, then Torrentspy can write logs containing very similar information, too.
But HTTP underneath SSL/TLS which happens to be tunneled inside of plain HTTP (or any other "legitmate" protocol) would still not be blocked. No matter what, to have perfect (or, I would say, even adequate) filtering, they would have to be omniscient regarding the intention behind the contents of all packets. Or just unplug everything.
Whoops. I forgot [1] http://haydenplanetarium.org/universe/duguide/mwt_ coordinates_sky.php Second paragraph of section titled "Galactic Coordinates Trace the Galactic Plane" is where I got 62 degrees between the solar ecliptic and the galactic equator.
Not so. The plane of the ecliptic and the galactic equator are offset from one another by about 62 degrees. [1] So it would appear that there is probably wide variation in the tilt of the ecliptic planes of other stellar systems.
:)
Or, a naive argument from astrophysics (IANA astrophysicist, although I am a physicist): Perhaps the disk of a new-formed star is typically rather thin (in the direction perpendicular to the ecliptic). Then material undergoing gravitational accretion to form planets would all come from essentially one plane, so the angular momentum would be perpendicular to that plane (Newtonian physics: take any number of masses with positions and velocities all solely in one plane. The angular momentum about any point will be perpendicular to that plane). The galaxy, on the other hand, is quite thick, even out here in the fringes. The nebulae that we can see are not planar, and are not even larger in the galactic plane or anything. They are fairly isotropic. So, as a nebula condenses to become a star, the material comes from all directions and has velocities going in all directions. The angular momentum could be all over the place.
So, if there isn't anything wrong with this naive argument (although there quite likely is, even if it doesn't invalidate the conclusion), then we should expect that stars should have ecliptics lying at all kinds of angles to the galactic equatorial plane. The angle of our own ecliptic is a single data point which would seem to support this notion.
We probably are actually quite interested in planets with rotational axes lying not perpendicular to their ecliptics. Not as Earth 2.0, but for scientific study, they should be rather interesting. How do they form? Are they typically captured rogue planets? Is there such a thing as a rogue planet? Or do they merely form from thicker solar disks? Or, did Aliens (TM) put them there as signals to us for when we become a mature enough species to understand them?
I suppose that you are referring to Stephen Hawking? But perhaps you ought to refer to number 8 on the Crackpot Index.
The best time to plant corn also matters to millions of people, but we don't bother putting a farmer's almanac on /.