As TFA points out, there is a "coding language for diagrams" called PSTricks. You might take a look at that.
Of course, I would just do like one of the sibling posters said and learn LaTeX... It'll save you an awful lot of time and energy over learning raw PS.
Interestingly, though, PS is Turing complete. It has been used, I believe, to write an implementation of Conway's Game of Life... Which is itself Turing complete. Twisted, eh?
At Fermilab (which I think we can all generally agree has quite a particle accelerator, as well as happening to be where I work:), most of the lab uses Fermilinux, which is a customised version of linux. Unfortunately, it is also about 6 years out of date.... (based on Redhat 7.3):-/ However, I know that Fermilab currently constitutes the largest single grouping of HEP scientists and engineers, and CERN will be even larger, and, I believe, use Linux primarily.
Even those here who are running windows are very strongly encouraged to use cygwin, as a great many of our standard tools will not work otherwise.
As to how you can have a non-infinite current in a zero-resistance loop, have you ever heard of non-ohmic materials? The well known Ohm's law is simply an approximation that works very well in most cases.
Ah. I see. I had failed to take into account the parent to your original post, which did mention infinite current. Yes, infinite currents are impossible (but since we're being pedantic, they would not in fact necessarily require that the number of electrons be infinite; the velocity of the electrons could be infinite instead, or the current could be a flowing fluid of infinite charge density, or any number of other possibilities, but yes, all these are equally impossible). However, my post did not deal with infinite currents, nor was it intended to deal with infinite currents.
As to where you mentioned superconductors: Allow me to correct myself. You mentioned zero-resistance loops, and claimed that no current could flow in such a loop. I merely pointed out a way that current can, and does, flow in such a loop. This is, as I stated, due to magnetic induction. If this is not the case, and magnetic induction causes no current to flow in a zero-resistance loop, then Maxwell's equations need revision. Since I haven't done the experiment myself, I don't know, but I would suspect that they do not, at least in this case.
not technically necessarily... Superconductors are a subset of zero-resistance materials. The only qualifying characteristic that I know off the top of my head is that the electrons in a superconductor always move in pairs, rather than singly.
That said, I don't know of any zero-resistance material which is not superconducting. But the point stands that zero-resistance is not sufficient to classify a material as a superconductor.
an uber-simple printer with no thrills, no onboard Postscript, nothing -- just a microcontroller to allow exact timing on head and rotor movement -- and then have all the logic in the computer next to it.
I work at the CDF collaboration at Fermilab, owned and operated by US DOE (yes, that means public) funds. The DOE requires that any analysis (yes, I said requires) be thoroughly reviewed by all members of the collaboration. This is a process called "blessing" the analysis. Since there are over 700 collaborators, this can take quite a while. However, if you think this is unethical, and think it would be far better to publish raw, unanalysed data, well, write a letter to the government. If you think that access to this data is a right granted by being a taxpayer, complain to the government that owns said equipment. Because if those telescopes are anything like our accelerator, that government doesn't allow them to do anything as abysmally stupid as releasing results that haven't been carefully considered.
You sir, are a fool, and have no idea how the scientific community operates on a daily basis, nor how it should operate. Do us all a favor, and next time there is an article relating to science, keep your mouth firmly shut. Better yet, buy yourself a muzzle. Wear it.
Oh my bad, let me check my post, I must have mistakenly said something about infinite current...... oh. Never mind. I didn't.
My point was that your argument that a superconducting loop could have no current whatsoever ignored a very important and well known idea from electrodynamics: induction.
Unless you change the externally applied magnetic flux through that loop of superconducting material, in which case you have an induced EMF, i.e. current will flow. This EMF will be precisely enough to generate a change in magnetic flux through the loop exactly opposite the change in externally applied magnetic flux. I'm glad you understand electricity, now go understand electromagnetism.
The magnetic flux through a superconducting loop is constant.
Fair enough. I was merely pointing out that the raw number of vulnerabilities doesn't really tell us much of anything. Now you've told us a good bit more. Thank you.
The real question is, however, how quickly and how well were these 53 vulnerabilities patched, and what proportion of openSS{L,H} installations were patched?
The number of vulnerabilities is not strictly correlated with a piece of software being insecure. It is also correlated with other things like "how hard are people looking for vulnerabilities?" and "how honest are the developers about admitting (and fixing) vulnerabilities?".
But if you're selling your shares as a result of Cisco's human rights policies, who do you think is buying them? Right: someone who doesn't care about Cisco's human rights policies.
I guess this reveals something I don't understand about the stock market....
If I own some stock, and decide I want to sell it, I don't have to look around to find somebody who wants to buy it, do I? Stock isn't bought and sold on ebay, transferred from buyer to seller... It seems that the total amount of owned stock must not be constant. But then, who pays you when you sell stock? If it's not somebody who is buying it from you, then is it the stock exchange? is it the company? who?
My best guess is that it's the company, in which case, if all the shareholders who cared about human rights sold their stock, it could (depending on the number) seriously hurt the company, and most likely, a significant portion of those shares would not simply be snapped up by someone else.
So, assuming that I've figured out this stock market thing, selling your shares wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. However, I suspect that it is true that by keeping your shares, you will have more control over Cisco, as you said.
Same thing here. I've picked up a 0.1 release window manager project. Unfortunately, I haven't made a whole lot of progress on it yet (understanding X is hell!), but maybe it'll get there. If not, well, nobody uses it now, so no loss.
The Real Men (TM) of Linux don't have "skillz". Nor are they {"leet","1337",whatever}. Nor do they ever trade "warez". Or "pwn" someone they don't like.
On the other hand, the rest of your post is absolutely correct.
I can see this feature really confusing the fire out of aunt Jane...
"But this {letter,photo_of_my_darling_little_baby,pirated_po rno_flick} was in here yesterday, where'd it go!?"
"Well, aunt Jane, you didn't edit it in the last week, see? So it's somewhere else."
"But, where?"
"Well, where did you save it"
"It was right there when I got done with it last week!" silent cursing
Slashdot Mirror
As TFA points out, there is a "coding language for diagrams" called PSTricks. You might take a look at that.
Of course, I would just do like one of the sibling posters said and learn LaTeX... It'll save you an awful lot of time and energy over learning raw PS.
Interestingly, though, PS is Turing complete. It has been used, I believe, to write an implementation of Conway's Game of Life... Which is itself Turing complete. Twisted, eh?
http://www.tjhsst.edu/~edanaher/pslife/
Incidentally, that page contains a link to a PS tutorial.
Oh never mind, you're just trolling... after all this is "Troll Tuesday"...
At Fermilab (which I think we can all generally agree has quite a particle accelerator, as well as happening to be where I work :), most of the lab uses Fermilinux, which is a customised version of linux. Unfortunately, it is also about 6 years out of date.... (based on Redhat 7.3) :-/ However, I know that Fermilab currently constitutes the largest single grouping of HEP scientists and engineers, and CERN will be even larger, and, I believe, use Linux primarily.
Even those here who are running windows are very strongly encouraged to use cygwin, as a great many of our standard tools will not work otherwise.
They could even make their own distro! Just imagine, AOLinux... oh the horrors....
This just in from the department of redundancy department:
Free (as in cost as well as in beer) always wins.
Free as in beer means no cost. Gratis. Perhaps you meant "Free (as in beer as well as in speech)"?
Sorry for the offtopic mods (they're coming) but you seem to have posted to the wrong article.
As to how you can have a non-infinite current in a zero-resistance loop, have you ever heard of non-ohmic materials? The well known Ohm's law is simply an approximation that works very well in most cases.
Ah. I see. I had failed to take into account the parent to your original post, which did mention infinite current. Yes, infinite currents are impossible (but since we're being pedantic, they would not in fact necessarily require that the number of electrons be infinite; the velocity of the electrons could be infinite instead, or the current could be a flowing fluid of infinite charge density, or any number of other possibilities, but yes, all these are equally impossible). However, my post did not deal with infinite currents, nor was it intended to deal with infinite currents.
As to where you mentioned superconductors: Allow me to correct myself. You mentioned zero-resistance loops, and claimed that no current could flow in such a loop. I merely pointed out a way that current can, and does, flow in such a loop. This is, as I stated, due to magnetic induction. If this is not the case, and magnetic induction causes no current to flow in a zero-resistance loop, then Maxwell's equations need revision. Since I haven't done the experiment myself, I don't know, but I would suspect that they do not, at least in this case.
not technically necessarily... Superconductors are a subset of zero-resistance materials. The only qualifying characteristic that I know off the top of my head is that the electrons in a superconductor always move in pairs, rather than singly.
That said, I don't know of any zero-resistance material which is not superconducting. But the point stands that zero-resistance is not sufficient to classify a material as a superconductor.
an uber-simple printer with no thrills, no onboard Postscript, nothing -- just a microcontroller to allow exact timing on head and rotor movement -- and then have all the logic in the computer next to it.
Kind of the winmodem of printers then?
I work at the CDF collaboration at Fermilab, owned and operated by US DOE (yes, that means public) funds. The DOE requires that any analysis (yes, I said requires) be thoroughly reviewed by all members of the collaboration. This is a process called "blessing" the analysis. Since there are over 700 collaborators, this can take quite a while. However, if you think this is unethical, and think it would be far better to publish raw, unanalysed data, well, write a letter to the government. If you think that access to this data is a right granted by being a taxpayer, complain to the government that owns said equipment. Because if those telescopes are anything like our accelerator, that government doesn't allow them to do anything as abysmally stupid as releasing results that haven't been carefully considered.
You sir, are a fool, and have no idea how the scientific community operates on a daily basis, nor how it should operate. Do us all a favor, and next time there is an article relating to science, keep your mouth firmly shut. Better yet, buy yourself a muzzle. Wear it.
Oh my bad, let me check my post, I must have mistakenly said something about infinite current...... oh. Never mind. I didn't.
My point was that your argument that a superconducting loop could have no current whatsoever ignored a very important and well known idea from electrodynamics: induction.
Wondering when "wired" will have the article on the competition out.
Wondering when "Wired" will change its name to "Unwired"...
Unless you change the externally applied magnetic flux through that loop of superconducting material, in which case you have an induced EMF, i.e. current will flow. This EMF will be precisely enough to generate a change in magnetic flux through the loop exactly opposite the change in externally applied magnetic flux. I'm glad you understand electricity, now go understand electromagnetism.
The magnetic flux through a superconducting loop is constant.
Fair enough. I was merely pointing out that the raw number of vulnerabilities doesn't really tell us much of anything. Now you've told us a good bit more. Thank you.
mkay thanks. I think I have a slightly better grasp of how stock works now.
The real question is, however, how quickly and how well were these 53 vulnerabilities patched, and what proportion of openSS{L,H} installations were patched?
The number of vulnerabilities is not strictly correlated with a piece of software being insecure. It is also correlated with other things like "how hard are people looking for vulnerabilities?" and "how honest are the developers about admitting (and fixing) vulnerabilities?".
Quite the same. Last time I robbed a bank, I outran the cops using techniques I learned from indy car drivers.
So what happens when a lot of people all sell their stock in one company at one time and noone is willing to buy it? Can they just not sell?
But if you're selling your shares as a result of Cisco's human rights policies, who do you think is buying them? Right: someone who doesn't care about Cisco's human rights policies.
I guess this reveals something I don't understand about the stock market....
If I own some stock, and decide I want to sell it, I don't have to look around to find somebody who wants to buy it, do I? Stock isn't bought and sold on ebay, transferred from buyer to seller... It seems that the total amount of owned stock must not be constant. But then, who pays you when you sell stock? If it's not somebody who is buying it from you, then is it the stock exchange? is it the company? who?
My best guess is that it's the company, in which case, if all the shareholders who cared about human rights sold their stock, it could (depending on the number) seriously hurt the company, and most likely, a significant portion of those shares would not simply be snapped up by someone else.
So, assuming that I've figured out this stock market thing, selling your shares wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. However, I suspect that it is true that by keeping your shares, you will have more control over Cisco, as you said.
breathlessly intoning
Those words don't go together in my head...
Same thing here. I've picked up a 0.1 release window manager project. Unfortunately, I haven't made a whole lot of progress on it yet (understanding X is hell!), but maybe it'll get there. If not, well, nobody uses it now, so no loss.
The Real Men (TM) of Linux don't have "skillz". Nor are they {"leet","1337",whatever}. Nor do they ever trade "warez". Or "pwn" someone they don't like.
On the other hand, the rest of your post is absolutely correct.
The external tank is jettisoned after takeoff, though, right? So no worries.
I can see this feature really confusing the fire out of aunt Jane...
o rno_flick} was in here yesterday, where'd it go!?"
"But this {letter,photo_of_my_darling_little_baby,pirated_p
"Well, aunt Jane, you didn't edit it in the last week, see? So it's somewhere else."
"But, where?"
"Well, where did you save it"
"It was right there when I got done with it last week!"
silent cursing