I still care about Ceres and Vesta. Not the other two, if it's not big enough to be round it doesn't qualify to be a planet, but Ceres and Vesta deserve it.
Sure, why not? It has a lot more in common with Mercury than it does with Phobos. It's more useful to define bodies in terms of their own properties than where they orbit; if I were going to make a split amongst bodies that are large enough to remain spherical but didn't fuse, it would be between gas giants and rocky planets.
Real examples please. You and your grandparent use evocative language ("crippled", "old-school", "productive"), but tell me why I should care. What concrete, real-world problems can I solve in java that I can't solve in python? Because I've seen web servers, traditional gui desktop apps, printer drivers, big number-crunching physics sims (using blas behind the scenes, of course, but python makes that easy), all successfully written in python. And I've watched good programmers try fail to do real-time telephony in java (the pauses for garbage collection are just too much). Python's concurrency may not be "real", but I've seen python servers handle thousands of concurrent users. Python's interpreter may be "old-school" but I've never been conscious of it holding me back. So please, explain.
(I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want more concrete examples)
The most common python interpreter doesn't have real threading. There are interpreters that do, if you want it. Turns out it's not actually very useful.
It's not a flaw. Unlike mimetypes or resource forks or any of the other various non-solutions around, they are preserved over all transfer protocols. They are under the user's control, without getting in the user's way. They're the best way to record filetypes I've seen, I mean it.
No; the UN is the one body with the authority to violate national sovereignty. But individual nation states, while they can and should do there utmost to stop genocides through peaceful means (including trade embargoes and the like), should not unilaterally invade other nations.
I think you're ignoring the standard definition and use of "force". A pseudo force is one that is an artifact of your frame of reference (and so disappears when looked at from the "correct" frame of reference).
It requires every router on the internet to support it, and the failure behaviour in the case that one doesn't is terrible. And it requires endpoints to support it in order to be able to connect to sites that use it. It's an awful idea.
He tried that before. I think he's given up on getting his scheduler (though perhaps not a suspiciously similar one written by Inigo) in the kernel after what happened with CFQ.
If an IPv6/IPvA/whatever-capable router is conncted to an IPv4, it can only directly forward there packets that have both source and destination addresses that were "really a normal IPv4 addresses". What kind of a fucking dolt would just strip the high bits out and think packets would magically get to the correct destinations?
Exactly. Which is why the proposal in the post I replied to is a bad idea - because that's basically what it amounts to.
If the source and destination addresses are "true" 128-bit addresses and there are outdated routers on the path, the more capable ones just have to tunnel around them. That's what the bazillion 6to4to6toetc things are for.
Indeed, which is why we need some fancy IPv6 stuff rather than the proposal in the post I replied to. Did you read the post I replied to?
Letting people seek refuge is fine, and something we should be doing a lot more of. But when it comes to acts of war, no, the US was absolutely justified in waiting until it was attacked to enter the war.
If a router which does not support IPxl sees an IPxl packet, it will attempt to route it based on where it would have found the original 32-bit destination address. This happens to be the lower 4 octets of the 64-bit destination address. Where the high octets are 0.0.0.1, this will result in the packet being forwarded in the desired direction. As a result, two IPxl endpoints have a high probability of successfully communicating across a non-IPxl network.
This is misleading to the point of lying; "where the high octets are 0.0.0.1" means exactly "where the address was really a normal IPv4 address". So this protocol only actually works for the same addresses that IPv4 works for. If you're one of the second-class citizens with an address that isn't really an IPv4 address, then packets intended for you will get randomly routed to some other host. And it won't even happen consistently; it will happen depending on whether or not the packet hits particular routers.
Almost. Charge-carriers in graphene, which are an imaginary particle which nevertheless effectively model the behaviour of the electron cloud (but don't exactly correspond to individual electrons), really are massless (in as far as they exist); they travel at the speed of light. When we roll up a nanotube, the massless particles moving in a 2D narrow tube behave like a massive particle moving along a 1D line; this is a general phenomenon already used in high energy physics, as I understand it; I can't pretend to know how it works. It's not to do with collisions or being close to each other, it's just because the 1D space isn't completely 1D.
This is all just a bunch of mathematical tricks, really, but so are charge-carriers themselves; modelling each electron separately is pretty much impossible. Anyway, the point is that (in theory) this would give an easy way to do experiments on relativistic behaviour - the charge-carrying pseudoparticles behave like massive particles moving at relativistic speeds, something you'd otherwise need an expensive accelerator to create.
If there is a centripetal force exerted on your body by the train, then there is a centrifugal force exterted on the train by your body. Neither of these forces is in any way "pseudo"
The force of your body on the train is not what people call centrifugal force. The centrifugal force is the notional force balancing the force from the train: "the train is pushing me away from it, but I am not accelerating, therefore there must be an equal and opposite force pushing me towards the train". Which isn't true; in this scenario you're not stationary, you're actually accelerating in exactly the way you'd expect from the force the train is exerting on you.
neither is your centripetally accelerated frame of reference is in any way "invalid".
It is invalid in as much as it's under acceleration. Which means that if you perform many experiments in it, you will get different results from when performed in an inertial frame.
Of course a pseudo force feels real, but it's an artifact of your reference frame. Ever been in a fast car when the driver hits the gas? Subjectively you feel like you're being pushed backwards, but there's no "force" pulling you back; if you think about it, what's happening is you're being pushed forwards by the car, and this is accelerating you exactly as much as you'd expect. It only looks like there's a force pushing you back (i.e. an equal and opposite force, so that you remain stationary (or at least not accelerated)) if you mistake the accelerating car for a stationary (or inertial) frame. Centrifugal force is exactly the same thing.
Interestingly gravity seems like it might be: gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass, hence the GR description of it as a deformation of spacetime rather than an attractive force. The other three (electromagnetism, strong, weak) clearly aren't though.
Hell, the Brits traveled 8,000 miles to go to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, and the only thing worth anything there is a bunch of sheep.
And a 220-mile exclusive economic zone full of oil.
You're old-fashioned. If your router is routing packets to internal systems then your NAT is only giving you obscurity - anyone who guesses an internal IP address correctly will be able to connect to that machine. That's not a good way to get a secure system. If you want to block connections from the internet to internal machines... do it by blocking connections from the internet to internal machines, not by hoping no-one figures out your internal addresses.
Slashdot Mirror
I still care about Ceres and Vesta. Not the other two, if it's not big enough to be round it doesn't qualify to be a planet, but Ceres and Vesta deserve it.
Sure, why not? It has a lot more in common with Mercury than it does with Phobos. It's more useful to define bodies in terms of their own properties than where they orbit; if I were going to make a split amongst bodies that are large enough to remain spherical but didn't fuse, it would be between gas giants and rocky planets.
(I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want more concrete examples)
The most common python interpreter doesn't have real threading. There are interpreters that do, if you want it. Turns out it's not actually very useful.
Honestly, if someone told me to write a GUI in java tomorrow, I'd sooner use Wicket for it than Swing.
It's not a flaw. Unlike mimetypes or resource forks or any of the other various non-solutions around, they are preserved over all transfer protocols. They are under the user's control, without getting in the user's way. They're the best way to record filetypes I've seen, I mean it.
The standards are almost identical though. Realistically there's no way there are patents out there that cover h264 and not VP8.
No; the UN is the one body with the authority to violate national sovereignty. But individual nation states, while they can and should do there utmost to stop genocides through peaceful means (including trade embargoes and the like), should not unilaterally invade other nations.
I think you're ignoring the standard definition and use of "force". A pseudo force is one that is an artifact of your frame of reference (and so disappears when looked at from the "correct" frame of reference).
It requires every router on the internet to support it, and the failure behaviour in the case that one doesn't is terrible. And it requires endpoints to support it in order to be able to connect to sites that use it. It's an awful idea.
He tried that before. I think he's given up on getting his scheduler (though perhaps not a suspiciously similar one written by Inigo) in the kernel after what happened with CFQ.
Exactly. Which is why the proposal in the post I replied to is a bad idea - because that's basically what it amounts to.
If the source and destination addresses are "true" 128-bit addresses and there are outdated routers on the path, the more capable ones just have to tunnel around them. That's what the bazillion 6to4to6toetc things are for.
Indeed, which is why we need some fancy IPv6 stuff rather than the proposal in the post I replied to. Did you read the post I replied to?
Healthcare reform. Getting the troops out of Iraq. The Dems are doing what they set out to. What do you think they're failing to do?
Letting people seek refuge is fine, and something we should be doing a lot more of. But when it comes to acts of war, no, the US was absolutely justified in waiting until it was attacked to enter the war.
This is misleading to the point of lying; "where the high octets are 0.0.0.1" means exactly "where the address was really a normal IPv4 address". So this protocol only actually works for the same addresses that IPv4 works for. If you're one of the second-class citizens with an address that isn't really an IPv4 address, then packets intended for you will get randomly routed to some other host. And it won't even happen consistently; it will happen depending on whether or not the packet hits particular routers.
This is all just a bunch of mathematical tricks, really, but so are charge-carriers themselves; modelling each electron separately is pretty much impossible. Anyway, the point is that (in theory) this would give an easy way to do experiments on relativistic behaviour - the charge-carrying pseudoparticles behave like massive particles moving at relativistic speeds, something you'd otherwise need an expensive accelerator to create.
The force of your body on the train is not what people call centrifugal force. The centrifugal force is the notional force balancing the force from the train: "the train is pushing me away from it, but I am not accelerating, therefore there must be an equal and opposite force pushing me towards the train". Which isn't true; in this scenario you're not stationary, you're actually accelerating in exactly the way you'd expect from the force the train is exerting on you.
neither is your centripetally accelerated frame of reference is in any way "invalid".
It is invalid in as much as it's under acceleration. Which means that if you perform many experiments in it, you will get different results from when performed in an inertial frame.
Of course a pseudo force feels real, but it's an artifact of your reference frame. Ever been in a fast car when the driver hits the gas? Subjectively you feel like you're being pushed backwards, but there's no "force" pulling you back; if you think about it, what's happening is you're being pushed forwards by the car, and this is accelerating you exactly as much as you'd expect. It only looks like there's a force pushing you back (i.e. an equal and opposite force, so that you remain stationary (or at least not accelerated)) if you mistake the accelerating car for a stationary (or inertial) frame. Centrifugal force is exactly the same thing.
Interestingly gravity seems like it might be: gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass, hence the GR description of it as a deformation of spacetime rather than an attractive force. The other three (electromagnetism, strong, weak) clearly aren't though.
So you fixed the same problem in the same way for both IPv4 and v6?
Hell, the Brits traveled 8,000 miles to go to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, and the only thing worth anything there is a bunch of sheep.
And a 220-mile exclusive economic zone full of oil.
Yeah, but you can't get on slashdot
You're old-fashioned. If your router is routing packets to internal systems then your NAT is only giving you obscurity - anyone who guesses an internal IP address correctly will be able to connect to that machine. That's not a good way to get a secure system. If you want to block connections from the internet to internal machines... do it by blocking connections from the internet to internal machines, not by hoping no-one figures out your internal addresses.
IME the distros still break it for at least a few days several times a year.
"I don't care about this because I don't use chrome" is pretty much a troll in a chrome release thread.