Yeah... a second battery? You can clearly see that there is an EMPTY button battery receptacle on the small, obviously re-purposed, PCB with the activation switch.
Well, I think it's a good thing they weren't already there at the 6:21 mark, isn't it? Maybe, just maybe, working for NASA, they've been trained to deal with rocket technology and had some inkling that it would be a good idea to wait until the explosions were finished?
Might it not have simply been caused by the wind? Judging by the smoke flow, there was a pretty stiff breeze, and the lander crashed in the direction it was blowing. I assume the thing is designed for the airless environment in which it is intended to operate, not under these conditions. Maybe they just chose a bad day for the test.
Judging by the smoke flow, there was a pretty stiff breeze, and the lander crashed in the direction of the wind. Presumably the lander is not designed for these conditions, since there is no wind on the Moon or an asteroid. Could it be that they simply chose a bad day or location for the test?
I agree. I use both Dvorak and QWERTY keyboard layouts and have found that I have two different sets of "muscle memories" and tend to switch between them without conscious effort. It just takes practice.
What if the tool is made outside the US? As far as I know, production and distribution of such a tool is still legal here in Canada. When you say there is no law against obtaining the tool, does that cover importing it?
If that's what you care about, study it. Why rely on botnet authors to code some arbitrary botnet spreading code when you can write your own and study various different scenarios at will?
First, the obvious: why would you design and study a proxy when you have full access to the real thing, isolated where it can do no harm? But there's more to it than that.
The whole point is to study what real botnets do; to discover the large-scale emergent behaviour that cannot be predicted by looking at the code. I think you're still having trouble accepting that it might not be possible to fully predict behaviour by examining an algorithm, but I'm not here to educate you in logic and math; it's true whether you accept it or not. How can you design a proxy algorithm that will exhibit the same emergent behaviour as some other algorithm, without knowing in advance what that behaviour is, let alone understanding how it arises? It's impossible by definition.
I'll admit to being a prude where profanity is concerned, but I don't expect people around me to change their behaviour. It's kind of a running gag in our office that my coworkers swear for me when I get upset. It cracks me up and relieves the tension.
doing one experiment and claiming you "found the love [or insert whatever emotion/though] center is irresponsible and should be correlated with other studies and hopefully monkey studies as well.
This would also allow us to use the term "monkey love" in a future Slashdot headline.
If the ad blocker does not allow the browser to issue an HTTP request to the analytics system at all, then the user agent is irrelevant. The ad-blocked browser is non-existent, as far as the analytics system is concerned, and therefore underreported.
No, I don't think it does. Regardless of whether you micromanaged your updates or trusted Microsoft to handle it, there was no mention of the Firefox extension in the original update release notes. Users were not given any opportunity to evaluate whether the update's behaviour was acceptable to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah ... a second battery? You can clearly see that there is an EMPTY button battery receptacle on the small, obviously re-purposed, PCB with the activation switch.
Well, I think it's a good thing they weren't already there at the 6:21 mark, isn't it? Maybe, just maybe, working for NASA, they've been trained to deal with rocket technology and had some inkling that it would be a good idea to wait until the explosions were finished?
Might it not have simply been caused by the wind? Judging by the smoke flow, there was a pretty stiff breeze, and the lander crashed in the direction it was blowing. I assume the thing is designed for the airless environment in which it is intended to operate, not under these conditions. Maybe they just chose a bad day for the test.
Judging by the smoke flow, there was a pretty stiff breeze, and the lander crashed in the direction of the wind. Presumably the lander is not designed for these conditions, since there is no wind on the Moon or an asteroid. Could it be that they simply chose a bad day or location for the test?
In this case, the asterisk is part of the trademark.
I disagree. It makes a good point. Your comment, however....
They host two million forms created by 700,000 users, so plenty of people have heard of them.
More virtual mod points from me! This is the best advice.
I agree. I use both Dvorak and QWERTY keyboard layouts and have found that I have two different sets of "muscle memories" and tend to switch between them without conscious effort. It just takes practice.
Another good point.
Those MetaFilter people must be starting to rub off on me ....
Of course; valid point taken. Knee-jerk reaction on my part.
Yes, I suppose you're right; there are definitely use cases in that range. And most hard drives are a lot bigger than that these days anyway.
Wow, isn't that useful.
...and you just proved that it is, in fact, "arguable".
(But I'm not a quantum mechanic. Perhaps a qualified physicist can vet that statement.)
Gotta love any problem that involves quantum mechanics, physicists, and veterinarians.
What if the tool is made outside the US? As far as I know, production and distribution of such a tool is still legal here in Canada. When you say there is no law against obtaining the tool, does that cover importing it?
Well, that was around the time of all the media hype about kids learning to make bombs online from the Terrorist's Handbook, right?
Moderators didn't get the joke
Maybe Symantec would pay them not to do this, and then they could afford real Windows licenses.
If that's what you care about, study it. Why rely on botnet authors to code some arbitrary botnet spreading code when you can write your own and study various different scenarios at will?
First, the obvious: why would you design and study a proxy when you have full access to the real thing, isolated where it can do no harm? But there's more to it than that.
The whole point is to study what real botnets do; to discover the large-scale emergent behaviour that cannot be predicted by looking at the code. I think you're still having trouble accepting that it might not be possible to fully predict behaviour by examining an algorithm, but I'm not here to educate you in logic and math; it's true whether you accept it or not. How can you design a proxy algorithm that will exhibit the same emergent behaviour as some other algorithm, without knowing in advance what that behaviour is, let alone understanding how it arises? It's impossible by definition.
I'll admit to being a prude where profanity is concerned, but I don't expect people around me to change their behaviour. It's kind of a running gag in our office that my coworkers swear for me when I get upset. It cracks me up and relieves the tension.
doing one experiment and claiming you "found the love [or insert whatever emotion/though] center is irresponsible and should be correlated with other studies and hopefully monkey studies as well.
This would also allow us to use the term "monkey love" in a future Slashdot headline.
If the ad blocker does not allow the browser to issue an HTTP request to the analytics system at all, then the user agent is irrelevant. The ad-blocked browser is non-existent, as far as the analytics system is concerned, and therefore underreported.
That's an excellent explanation. Thank you.
No, I don't think it does. Regardless of whether you micromanaged your updates or trusted Microsoft to handle it, there was no mention of the Firefox extension in the original update release notes. Users were not given any opportunity to evaluate whether the update's behaviour was acceptable to them.