McCarthy was going after soviet agents. That he was going after mere lefties was fiction written by said soviet agents and piled on by their "useful idiots". (their term, not mine)
McCarthy has been very thoroughly vindicated, first by the Venona project that intercepted soviet communications, and then by the opening of the KGB files.
Claims otherwise are in the same category as claims that Columbus thought the world was flat.
It takes up to several milliseconds* for the bullet to exit the barrel. During that time, the gas is pushing both the bullet and the firearm. Because of geometry, shortly after the bullet exits, the gas stops pushing on it, but it still acts on the barrel.
So, most of the recoil happens after the bullet has left, but not all of it.
* The time depends on a lot of factors, the length of the barrel and the burn rate of the propellant are obviously huge, but also less obvious factors like the headspace of the chamber, the geometry of the lede in a rifle or the forcing cone of a shotgun, the seating depth and load factor of the cartridge, etc.
Apparently someone was planning to fly across the English Channel today and they were stopped by someone planning to make a similar flight on Friday. One presumes that there is a reason why someone should care, but neither article says why. Reading between the lines, it appears that one or both of these battery powered planes is now certified for sale. Perhaps this is the first time you've been able to buy an electric plane with enough range to fly a round trip across the channel?
That isn't the big question. Oddly, neither of the articles answers the big question that all of slashdot is wondering about. The authors don't even seem to be aware that there is a question.
How the hell did the motor manufacturer prevent the flight?
Looks like the motor in question was a loaner, probably an engineering sample. The quoted letter directly demands that it be returned, presumably because the loan agreement allowed them to recall it at any time. I'd expect a different quote if it was an appeal to the aircraft licensing authority.
You don't control the security policy of most things that you need to interact with.
You should be assuming that every single site that is not under your direct and personal control is doing the same thing. Even if they swear that they are not.
Every password that you give to a remote system should be a unique random password given only to that system and saved in your personal password safe.
The one exception is having a common password for things that you don't care about. The trick to taking advantage of the exception is making sure that you really, really don't care about any of the systems in that category, and never will.
In case you missed it, my objection is to calling it a "round-the-world flight", when it is not.
I pretty much stopped reading these stories when I saw that they were landing several times along the way, which makes it a "round-the-world trip", which, while impressive, is not even remotely the same thing as a "round-the-world flight".
If they can stay up for 80 hours, they should be able to do a "round-the-world" flight too.
"round-the-world flight"? Wake me when a solar plane actually does that.
I don't care about a plane making a series of relatively short flights under optimal conditions (daylight), and I don't see why anyone else does either.
This is no more a "round-the-world" flight than if they had taken off in Nevada and circled a rock in the desert from sunrise to sunset for a few days in a row.
I can tell you that one of the filesystems I archive has lots of small-ish files in it. Like over 300,000 files averaging like 250kb each. The rsync takes a few seconds to scan everything. Lots of changes or changes to big files will slow things down during the copy.
Oh, a handy tip for running big Linux fileservers: have a minimum of 1 GB RAM per 1 TB of storage. No matter what you are doing with your server, you want lots of room for the stat cache. Even more if you are scanning regularly looking for changes.
As long as the system functions well as a file server, the versioning backend shouldn't hurt too much. A slow sync shouldn't interfere with normal usage, it just reduces the maximum scan frequency.
One small disadvantage to this system is that it has a window. Things can happen in that window that will never be seen. If you have one of the very rare cases where you absolutely need to catch every single change, you can't use this; you need to use COW.
For everyone else, this is a very good solution. And it is fun to set up. One more tip, think about your locks in advance, and pay attention to situations where it makes more sense to bail out entirely (and wait for the next pass) rather than waiting for the lock to clear.
Do you really expect people to ignore such valuable information?
How you dress, how you speak, what you name your kids - all things that plainly tell everyone around you, who you are.
Naming your kids has the added benefit of telling everyone that meets them who their parents are. It isn't racism to learn which names are best avoided, it is simply pattern recognition.
Well, fortunately, both problems are solved. I direct your attention first to the question of why there are more black men in prison than you would think "fair" by their fraction of the population:
They aren't acting out of the fear that someone is slipping out of their control. They are merely doing what they have always done, except when someone stronger was preventing them, by force, from doing it.
And colonialism, particularly in Africa, is far older than the Ottoman empire and Turkey. Turkey was just following in the long tradition of arab and persian empires.
Well, for one thing, it doesn't involve amending the constitution for every decision that needs to be overturned.
For another thing, 3/4 is not written in stone. It could be 2/3, or 3/5, or whatever.
If we were talking about a state veto over federal legislation, I'd support a low bar, like 1/3, or maybe 2/5.
Unfortunately, Supreme Court cases are binary decisions. Overturning a ruling is, in effect, a ruling for the opposite. Because of that, 3/5 or 2/3 would be more appropriate.
Then again, I'm not concerned with "popular support". Bringing it up suggests that you missed a some important days in your civics class, or, more likely, that your teachers missed those days in theirs.
And you may not be aware, but the 17th Amendment abolished the old system of states appointing their senators. Passing the senate hasn't been synonymous with meeting with the approval of the states since 1913.
rsync with the --compare-dest option will give changed files, and --link-dest will give whole file trees at set times.
You can do it pretty simple, or quite complicated, depending on your needs and preferences.
rsync --link-dest makes a new tree with the current time, using only enough space for the directory tree and the changed files. On my box, I use it in a cron that runs every 5 minutes and cycles through my backup list. If any of them are older than the interval, it fires off the backup script specific to that type of connection (local LVM, nfs, CIFS/SMB, ssh, etc).
A second cron then prunes those directories so that I've got fewer copies as I go back in time. An example would be pulling a copy every 15 minutes and keep every copy for 2 weeks, keep one from each hour for a month, one per day for a year, one per month for 10 years, and one per year forever.
This can be easily adapted to other schemes. --compare-dest will make a tree with just the changed files, which you can then gather up and sort into the archival tree. Run a second (plain) rsync to sync up the comparison directory when done.
Did they not cover the Connecticut Compromise in your high school? Wyoming + Montana already have more say in lots of things than California.
Right now, the Supreme Court has the final say in everything. The only appeal possible is open revolution. Surely that is not to be preferred over peaceful options.
Just FYI, several of the states had official religions at the time of ratification. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" was just as much about preventing congress from abolishing those as it was about preventing them from creating a new official federal religion. "Respecting" here means "regarding" or "relating to", and swings both ways.
One constitutional amendment I've seen proposed before, and after this week I now believe that it is the most important one ever, would allow a majority of states to overturn supreme court decisions by passing legislation within a set window.
Nah, no need to imagine spite when the power vacuum is as plain as day.
European colonialism is on the decline across Africa and the middle east. As a result, the spores of the previous colonial powers, dormant for hundreds of years, are waking up and reasserting themselves.
The slave trade, for example, ran for hundreds of years across those parts of the world under Islamic control, until Europe came within a hair's breadth of eradicating the practice from the world. Now it is back.
One example would be repeating "science" like a magic talisman to protect you from having to think.
Go back and read the linked article, but this time with your mind open. Pretend that it was written by someone you usually disagree with, someone who has no authority for you. Print it out and use a highlighter to mark each paragraph or sentence that is merely a restatement of the assumptions.
When you see what is left, ask yourself why someone would agree with it, if they didn't already agree with it when they started.
You may want to read that again. First, they are talking about doses 30 times the average annual background level. I don't think anyone is claiming that hormesis applies when someone nukes the city you are living in.
And second, they are using circular logic. Read this quote carefully:
"A comprehensive review of available biological and biophysical data led the committee to conclude that the risk would continue in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans."
You'll note that they aren't saying here that medical evidence supports LNT. Instead they are looking at biophysical data (radiation can harm DNA) and biological data (damaged DNA can cause mutation) to reach the conclusion they started with.
Actually, the paragraph before the one I pulled that sentence from is even worse. They took a page out of the climate change handbook and are now citing their model as evidence in support of their model.
Flight attendants are "strictly regulated" on your planet? Sounds nice.
The only way I can make sense of your arguments is if you are making two unstated, and incorrect, assumptions. I don't like to put arguments in the mouths of others, but I can really see no other way to reach your conclusion. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
The first assumption is that the background radiation level is uniform across the planet.
It is not. And cancer rates are not positively related to the average background level of a region. In fact, they seem to be inversely related. Here is one link, the first one I found. Feel free to google as many more as you care to look for.
The second assumption is that life that evolved on a planet with background radiation, but without any mechanism to repair radiation damage.
This is also wrong. Cancer happens not when a cell mutates, but when a mutated cell is not rejected by the body, or not quickly enough. Long living animals, like humans, have lots and lots of repair and rejection systems. We call it hormesis when those repair mechanisms are stimulated by subacute doses.
Also, HWE does not appear to be dominant. See here for example.
Yeah, that table is based on LNT, a "theory" with less supporting evidence than Santa Claus. Actually, that's not fair to Santa, since the evidence directly contradicts LNT. But LNT is mandated by law in many cases, which you should keep in mind the next time someone tells you that the left is pro-science.
LNT is "Linear, no threshold". According to that nonsense, a radiation dose expected to cause cancer in a person, but distributed over 7 billion people still causes 1 "extra" cancer in the world. This dose may not even be detectable, by the way, and would be far smaller than the ordinary background radiation levels.
In reality, people with occupational radiation doses have lower cancer rates than the general population.
I still have, but no longer need, a relay box wired to a parallel port pin on my router.
The router sniffs conntrack looking for recently used peers, and pings them. If they ping well, they get stuffed into a list of good pingers. It then hits a good pingers every few seconds. If it can't hit anything for a while, it restarts DHCP. If that doesn't work, it flips the relay for a few seconds.
Worked like a charm on my cable modem. Now that I have fiber, the ONT is rock solid. If I'm down, there is a fiber cut somewhere, or a router leaking magic smoke in their head end.
P.S. The other pins are wired to an old school LED bar display, cycling lame patterns. One is "cylon".
Slashdot Mirror
Are you going somewhere with this?
McCarthy was going after soviet agents. That he was going after mere lefties was fiction written by said soviet agents and piled on by their "useful idiots". (their term, not mine)
McCarthy has been very thoroughly vindicated, first by the Venona project that intercepted soviet communications, and then by the opening of the KGB files.
Claims otherwise are in the same category as claims that Columbus thought the world was flat.
It takes up to several milliseconds* for the bullet to exit the barrel. During that time, the gas is pushing both the bullet and the firearm. Because of geometry, shortly after the bullet exits, the gas stops pushing on it, but it still acts on the barrel.
So, most of the recoil happens after the bullet has left, but not all of it.
* The time depends on a lot of factors, the length of the barrel and the burn rate of the propellant are obviously huge, but also less obvious factors like the headspace of the chamber, the geometry of the lede in a rifle or the forcing cone of a shotgun, the seating depth and load factor of the cartridge, etc.
The competing flight on Friday is an Airbus project, E-Fan.
So, Airbus wants to be first. Siemens is in bed with Airbus. Siemens pulls their motor so that Pipistrel doesn't make it first.
Apparently someone was planning to fly across the English Channel today and they were stopped by someone planning to make a similar flight on Friday. One presumes that there is a reason why someone should care, but neither article says why. Reading between the lines, it appears that one or both of these battery powered planes is now certified for sale. Perhaps this is the first time you've been able to buy an electric plane with enough range to fly a round trip across the channel?
That isn't the big question. Oddly, neither of the articles answers the big question that all of slashdot is wondering about. The authors don't even seem to be aware that there is a question.
How the hell did the motor manufacturer prevent the flight?
Looks like the motor in question was a loaner, probably an engineering sample. The quoted letter directly demands that it be returned, presumably because the loan agreement allowed them to recall it at any time. I'd expect a different quote if it was an appeal to the aircraft licensing authority.
You don't control the security policy of most things that you need to interact with.
You should be assuming that every single site that is not under your direct and personal control is doing the same thing. Even if they swear that they are not.
Every password that you give to a remote system should be a unique random password given only to that system and saved in your personal password safe.
The one exception is having a common password for things that you don't care about. The trick to taking advantage of the exception is making sure that you really, really don't care about any of the systems in that category, and never will.
In case you missed it, my objection is to calling it a "round-the-world flight", when it is not.
I pretty much stopped reading these stories when I saw that they were landing several times along the way, which makes it a "round-the-world trip", which, while impressive, is not even remotely the same thing as a "round-the-world flight".
If they can stay up for 80 hours, they should be able to do a "round-the-world" flight too.
P.S. Are you 12?
"round-the-world flight"? Wake me when a solar plane actually does that.
I don't care about a plane making a series of relatively short flights under optimal conditions (daylight), and I don't see why anyone else does either.
This is no more a "round-the-world" flight than if they had taken off in Nevada and circled a rock in the desert from sunrise to sunset for a few days in a row.
I don't know. I don't have that many users.
I can tell you that one of the filesystems I archive has lots of small-ish files in it. Like over 300,000 files averaging like 250kb each. The rsync takes a few seconds to scan everything. Lots of changes or changes to big files will slow things down during the copy.
Oh, a handy tip for running big Linux fileservers: have a minimum of 1 GB RAM per 1 TB of storage. No matter what you are doing with your server, you want lots of room for the stat cache. Even more if you are scanning regularly looking for changes.
As long as the system functions well as a file server, the versioning backend shouldn't hurt too much. A slow sync shouldn't interfere with normal usage, it just reduces the maximum scan frequency.
One small disadvantage to this system is that it has a window. Things can happen in that window that will never be seen. If you have one of the very rare cases where you absolutely need to catch every single change, you can't use this; you need to use COW.
For everyone else, this is a very good solution. And it is fun to set up. One more tip, think about your locks in advance, and pay attention to situations where it makes more sense to bail out entirely (and wait for the next pass) rather than waiting for the lock to clear.
Do you really expect people to ignore such valuable information?
How you dress, how you speak, what you name your kids - all things that plainly tell everyone around you, who you are.
Naming your kids has the added benefit of telling everyone that meets them who their parents are. It isn't racism to learn which names are best avoided, it is simply pattern recognition.
Well, fortunately, both problems are solved. I direct your attention first to the question of why there are more black men in prison than you would think "fair" by their fraction of the population:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s....
Next up, a quick look at hiring practices. Note that this one is earlier, and does not walk you quite so explicitly through the cutoff theory.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s....
If you can handle the math, that site will open your eyes.
They aren't acting out of the fear that someone is slipping out of their control. They are merely doing what they have always done, except when someone stronger was preventing them, by force, from doing it.
And colonialism, particularly in Africa, is far older than the Ottoman empire and Turkey. Turkey was just following in the long tradition of arab and persian empires.
Well, for one thing, it doesn't involve amending the constitution for every decision that needs to be overturned.
For another thing, 3/4 is not written in stone. It could be 2/3, or 3/5, or whatever.
If we were talking about a state veto over federal legislation, I'd support a low bar, like 1/3, or maybe 2/5.
Unfortunately, Supreme Court cases are binary decisions. Overturning a ruling is, in effect, a ruling for the opposite. Because of that, 3/5 or 2/3 would be more appropriate.
Then again, I'm not concerned with "popular support". Bringing it up suggests that you missed a some important days in your civics class, or, more likely, that your teachers missed those days in theirs.
Who ever said it would be a simple majority?
And you may not be aware, but the 17th Amendment abolished the old system of states appointing their senators. Passing the senate hasn't been synonymous with meeting with the approval of the states since 1913.
rsync with the --compare-dest option will give changed files, and --link-dest will give whole file trees at set times.
You can do it pretty simple, or quite complicated, depending on your needs and preferences.
rsync --link-dest makes a new tree with the current time, using only enough space for the directory tree and the changed files. On my box, I use it in a cron that runs every 5 minutes and cycles through my backup list. If any of them are older than the interval, it fires off the backup script specific to that type of connection (local LVM, nfs, CIFS/SMB, ssh, etc).
A second cron then prunes those directories so that I've got fewer copies as I go back in time. An example would be pulling a copy every 15 minutes and keep every copy for 2 weeks, keep one from each hour for a month, one per day for a year, one per month for 10 years, and one per year forever.
This can be easily adapted to other schemes. --compare-dest will make a tree with just the changed files, which you can then gather up and sort into the archival tree. Run a second (plain) rsync to sync up the comparison directory when done.
Did they not cover the Connecticut Compromise in your high school? Wyoming + Montana already have more say in lots of things than California.
Right now, the Supreme Court has the final say in everything. The only appeal possible is open revolution. Surely that is not to be preferred over peaceful options.
There is no shortage of people leading the push for polygamy now. Why would we need one more?
Just FYI, several of the states had official religions at the time of ratification. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" was just as much about preventing congress from abolishing those as it was about preventing them from creating a new official federal religion. "Respecting" here means "regarding" or "relating to", and swings both ways.
One constitutional amendment I've seen proposed before, and after this week I now believe that it is the most important one ever, would allow a majority of states to overturn supreme court decisions by passing legislation within a set window.
Nah, no need to imagine spite when the power vacuum is as plain as day.
European colonialism is on the decline across Africa and the middle east. As a result, the spores of the previous colonial powers, dormant for hundreds of years, are waking up and reasserting themselves.
The slave trade, for example, ran for hundreds of years across those parts of the world under Islamic control, until Europe came within a hair's breadth of eradicating the practice from the world. Now it is back.
Do you know what a word fetish is?
One example would be repeating "science" like a magic talisman to protect you from having to think.
Go back and read the linked article, but this time with your mind open. Pretend that it was written by someone you usually disagree with, someone who has no authority for you. Print it out and use a highlighter to mark each paragraph or sentence that is merely a restatement of the assumptions.
When you see what is left, ask yourself why someone would agree with it, if they didn't already agree with it when they started.
You may want to read that again. First, they are talking about doses 30 times the average annual background level. I don't think anyone is claiming that hormesis applies when someone nukes the city you are living in.
And second, they are using circular logic. Read this quote carefully:
"A comprehensive review of available biological and biophysical data led the committee to conclude that the
risk would continue in a linear fashion at lower doses
without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the
potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans."
You'll note that they aren't saying here that medical evidence supports LNT. Instead they are looking at biophysical data (radiation can harm DNA) and biological data (damaged DNA can cause mutation) to reach the conclusion they started with.
Actually, the paragraph before the one I pulled that sentence from is even worse. They took a page out of the climate change handbook and are now citing their model as evidence in support of their model.
Flight attendants are "strictly regulated" on your planet? Sounds nice.
The only way I can make sense of your arguments is if you are making two unstated, and incorrect, assumptions. I don't like to put arguments in the mouths of others, but I can really see no other way to reach your conclusion. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
The first assumption is that the background radiation level is uniform across the planet.
It is not. And cancer rates are not positively related to the average background level of a region. In fact, they seem to be inversely related. Here is one link, the first one I found. Feel free to google as many more as you care to look for.
The second assumption is that life that evolved on a planet with background radiation, but without any mechanism to repair radiation damage.
This is also wrong. Cancer happens not when a cell mutates, but when a mutated cell is not rejected by the body, or not quickly enough. Long living animals, like humans, have lots and lots of repair and rejection systems. We call it hormesis when those repair mechanisms are stimulated by subacute doses.
Also, HWE does not appear to be dominant. See here for example.
Yeah, that table is based on LNT, a "theory" with less supporting evidence than Santa Claus. Actually, that's not fair to Santa, since the evidence directly contradicts LNT. But LNT is mandated by law in many cases, which you should keep in mind the next time someone tells you that the left is pro-science.
LNT is "Linear, no threshold". According to that nonsense, a radiation dose expected to cause cancer in a person, but distributed over 7 billion people still causes 1 "extra" cancer in the world. This dose may not even be detectable, by the way, and would be far smaller than the ordinary background radiation levels.
In reality, people with occupational radiation doses have lower cancer rates than the general population.
I still have, but no longer need, a relay box wired to a parallel port pin on my router.
The router sniffs conntrack looking for recently used peers, and pings them. If they ping well, they get stuffed into a list of good pingers. It then hits a good pingers every few seconds. If it can't hit anything for a while, it restarts DHCP. If that doesn't work, it flips the relay for a few seconds.
Worked like a charm on my cable modem. Now that I have fiber, the ONT is rock solid. If I'm down, there is a fiber cut somewhere, or a router leaking magic smoke in their head end.
P.S. The other pins are wired to an old school LED bar display, cycling lame patterns. One is "cylon".
What is the importance of being 5 years late?
Costs Of Nuclear Power Plants - What Went Wrong?