And that's a shame, because if the US hopes to achieve any kind of realistic energy independence, nuclear power holds the key.
Interestingly, that's the exact point being made by many global warming scientists. The only drawback to nuclear power generation is disposal of waste materials. However, a very small quantity of fuel lasts a really long time, so disposal isn't a constatnt issue, only a periodic one.
As for md5... with only 32bits, it should've came up with repetitive hashes in end anyways? MD5 is a 160-bit algorithm, not 32.
only answer would be to trust the source that is supplying the hash I have read a lot of Bruce Schneier's writings, and he points out over and over again that security relies on people, and people can fail. It is perfectly possible to create unbreakable algorithms and protocols. Impossible to guess passwords and keys.
That's when the person wishing to gain access or dupe the user tries a different approach, like proverbial dumpster diving, social engineering, and other, non-technical attacks.
It'd be great if Firefox would close the current tab when the 'X' in the upper right of the program windows was pressed. Or at least, if this was optional. Most people, including myself, always want to close the current window and have the habbit of cramming the mouse into the upper right and clicking in order to accomplish this.
I use Ctrl-W.. it only ever closes the current tab, and no mouse movement is necessary.
I don't find it expensive. If you buy a 1Gb SD card for your digital camera (as I did at Christmas last year), you'll spend ~$75 for the sd card, on top of the (for mine anyways) $200 for the camera. So, for $199 I can buy just a camera, or just 2.5Gb in SD cards.
I was merely pointing out that story was reported by a non-US agency, and therefore referring to the company as a US company makes sense. It wasn't offtopic.
The only political issue that should really matter right now is electoral reform. We need to change the system so that two parties cannot dominate any election each through fear of the other being elected.
I agree. We really need a 'none of the above' choice, though, too. With a real choice of 10, 20, 80 candidates, and a possibility of a NOTA, people would eb forced to be more up-front with their views and policies.
In Jurassic Park, Michael Crichton proposes that dinosaurs were mammals, at least some of them.
Quoting the article, "Pterosaurs could walk on four legs using the "knuckles" of their hands. They flew with the help of an ultra-thin membrane just half a millimetre thick, which was stretched between its neck, tail and wings."
What if they were just huge bats? The description sounds awful bat-like to me.
he cell's processor can use this information to route data around the affected area.
Are the sensors all Cell processors? That would rock! Just think, a synergistic CPU in a grid of hundreds or thousands... the space-based supercomputer. And no need for extra cooling if the skin is facing away from the sun!
With that out of the way, American Scientist does a good job of covering science news. It's parent organization, Sigma Xi, has a filtered publication, Science in the News, that is edited by a real person, who screens for quality in the articles.
One of the big problems in journalism at large, and especially coverage of news in science, is that the journalists are not familiar with the material. So, the professional dumbs it down enough for the reporter to 'get it', and then he rewrites his notes into an 'interesting' story.
So, by the time it gets published, a bunch of the original material is missing or misreported, since the reporter is trying to get his story published.
I've thought about putting in those case clocks/temp guages/fans/etc, but I also kinda like the look of the bezel plate, and I don't want my machine making more noise (as a fan would necessarily do).
You could try to stop (gasp!) adding to your machine.
It was tried in America. Several of the early colonies in VA and MA tried a communal environment where all supplies, food, etc went into a community pot, and then were drawn out as people had need.
The problem with this is that lazy people who don't want to work won't, and will just draw from the pot. Instead of encouraging people to be productive and help each other, it encouraged the people who wanted to work to completely support those who wouldn't.
There's also the possibility of charging just a per month rate, with no free trial. Instead of $50 up-front and $15/month, why not have the game available from the company's website, and you can download it only after paying the $15 registration fee which activates your account, and then you have the game and can play as long as you want for the $X/month rate. Once I have an account, I can install the game onto as many machines as I want, but only use the account from one at a time, nuless I buy a multi-user option.
The company could still give away copies for reviewers and such, but it would be a much lower initial investment.
There's also the aspect of getting patches. If I move to a new computer, sell my copy of the game to somebody else, etc, all of the patches that have been released need to be redownlaoded. In my account-based, download scenario, moving to a new machine is a download of the entire game, which would presumably have all of the patches included. Anyone interested in playing such a beast would be on broadband, so the hour (or whatever) to download is not a big deal.
Equality in human treatment has been around for a long time, in many societies -- it's not just us. Certain societies have degraded this original state of man, but people have been treated fairly equitably among their own societies for a long time. There have been (and are now) breakdowns in this general status, such as slave trading, but it's not the norm. In fact, slave trading only exists from the position of power, often from the conquering people, in taking the conquered to be their slaves.
So, is it right to engage in cannibalism? It is a fundamental aspect of some societies.
Justifying my beliefs to another person pretty much involves describing the Bible's message, and understanding that the Moral Law (the 10 Commandments) has been written onto our hearts by God at conception.
The reason society has morals is because God put them there. Humans are unique in the created realm of having souls. Animals do not have souls, and do not need them. Because we have been made in God's image, we bear likenesses to Him, albeit mostly poor and twisted ones. We have the ability to choose to do good or evil. We have the ability to recognize when something bad has happened, and to understand that that should be punished (theft, murder, rape, etc).
"you're too caught up in absolute truths. I have no faith in the physical universe, I'm just working under the assumption that it exists, and with the knowledge that I can't possibly know what's outside of it"
If there is no absolute truth, then there are no morals. There is no justice, and there is no guilt. There is no right or wrong, since all of these must be defined by an absolute somehwere.
I find your statement very frightening. Not for me, but for you. If you don't believe in absolute truth, then you can't be upset if your kid gets shot in a mugging.
And I don't "believe in God just in case". I believe in God because He's real, and without believing in Him, I'm going to Hell. I believe in Him, and trust in Jesus' work on the cross because it's the only way of salvation.
The ultimate question of "why" can only be answered by God. He created us for His own pleasure, because He wanted to.
If you want to place your faith in the eternality of the physical universe (which defies any observation that has ever been made or could be made), that's your prerogative.
If God doesn't exist, then there's no reason to argue about Him. If He does exist, then believing in anything else is unwise.
For long-term storage, I'd advocate rich text format, or straight-up text, maybe even HTML. Text is openable by anything, and hasn't changed since it was designed.
if God created the universe, who created God? And who created that God? After all, at each point one could argue that the preceding step in the creation heirarchy is too complex to have created itself through random chance and so necessitates the existence of a higher power.
Unless God exists by Himself, without the need to be created. If there is an infinite supreme being, then He wouldn't have needed to be made. If you belive that God is infinitely bigger than the universe, then it stands to reason that He is inifinitely bigger than time, and could have created time as a concession to finite creatures such as ourselves.
I agree, posting anything about your beliefs on Slashdot that go against the preconceived notions most Slashdotters seem to have (ie, pro MS, anti Apple/Linux, pro creation, anti evolution) just gets you modded down and into a flame war.
It isn't possible to have rational exchanges with most of these people, which is truly a shame.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I've seen a couple 160-bit implementations of MD5 to compare it directly with SHA-1. You're right, though, that the stock algorithm is 128-bit.
Interestingly, that's the exact point being made by many global warming scientists. The only drawback to nuclear power generation is disposal of waste materials. However, a very small quantity of fuel lasts a really long time, so disposal isn't a constatnt issue, only a periodic one.
Link directly to an 8.1MB file in the slashdot post! Apparently their server could handle it, but it's kinda mean, doncha think?
MD5 is a 160-bit algorithm, not 32.
only answer would be to trust the source that is supplying the hash
I have read a lot of Bruce Schneier's writings, and he points out over and over again that security relies on people, and people can fail. It is perfectly possible to create unbreakable algorithms and protocols. Impossible to guess passwords and keys.
That's when the person wishing to gain access or dupe the user tries a different approach, like proverbial dumpster diving, social engineering, and other, non-technical attacks.
It hasn't yet unseated Bill Gates as emperor of the world...
I use Ctrl-W.. it only ever closes the current tab, and no mouse movement is necessary.
I don't find it expensive. If you buy a 1Gb SD card for your digital camera (as I did at Christmas last year), you'll spend ~$75 for the sd card, on top of the (for mine anyways) $200 for the camera. So, for $199 I can buy just a camera, or just 2.5Gb in SD cards.
I think the iPod nano is a good deal.
I was merely pointing out that story was reported by a non-US agency, and therefore referring to the company as a US company makes sense. It wasn't offtopic.
it was reported in the BBC...
I agree. We really need a 'none of the above' choice, though, too. With a real choice of 10, 20, 80 candidates, and a possibility of a NOTA, people would eb forced to be more up-front with their views and policies.
Quoting the article, "Pterosaurs could walk on four legs using the "knuckles" of their hands. They flew with the help of an ultra-thin membrane just half a millimetre thick, which was stretched between its neck, tail and wings."
What if they were just huge bats? The description sounds awful bat-like to me.
Are the sensors all Cell processors? That would rock! Just think, a synergistic CPU in a grid of hundreds or thousands... the space-based supercomputer. And no need for extra cooling if the skin is facing away from the sun!
With that out of the way, American Scientist does a good job of covering science news. It's parent organization, Sigma Xi, has a filtered publication, Science in the News, that is edited by a real person, who screens for quality in the articles.
One of the big problems in journalism at large, and especially coverage of news in science, is that the journalists are not familiar with the material. So, the professional dumbs it down enough for the reporter to 'get it', and then he rewrites his notes into an 'interesting' story.
So, by the time it gets published, a bunch of the original material is missing or misreported, since the reporter is trying to get his story published.
You could try to stop (gasp!) adding to your machine.
True, but there are no moving parts, and it's really, really fast... much faster than hard drives can be made to be since they have to spin.
The problem with this is that lazy people who don't want to work won't, and will just draw from the pot. Instead of encouraging people to be productive and help each other, it encouraged the people who wanted to work to completely support those who wouldn't.
I use AntiVir, though it is not free for commercial use. It's fast and easy to set up under Windows, though.
ok, so it's not easy to get the H2 back out, but hydrogen sits around all over the place in water just fine...
The company could still give away copies for reviewers and such, but it would be a much lower initial investment.
There's also the aspect of getting patches. If I move to a new computer, sell my copy of the game to somebody else, etc, all of the patches that have been released need to be redownlaoded. In my account-based, download scenario, moving to a new machine is a download of the entire game, which would presumably have all of the patches included. Anyone interested in playing such a beast would be on broadband, so the hour (or whatever) to download is not a big deal.
Anybody else think this might work?
So, is it right to engage in cannibalism? It is a fundamental aspect of some societies.
Justifying my beliefs to another person pretty much involves describing the Bible's message, and understanding that the Moral Law (the 10 Commandments) has been written onto our hearts by God at conception.
The reason society has morals is because God put them there. Humans are unique in the created realm of having souls. Animals do not have souls, and do not need them. Because we have been made in God's image, we bear likenesses to Him, albeit mostly poor and twisted ones. We have the ability to choose to do good or evil. We have the ability to recognize when something bad has happened, and to understand that that should be punished (theft, murder, rape, etc).
If there is no absolute truth, then there are no morals. There is no justice, and there is no guilt. There is no right or wrong, since all of these must be defined by an absolute somehwere.
I find your statement very frightening. Not for me, but for you. If you don't believe in absolute truth, then you can't be upset if your kid gets shot in a mugging.
And I don't "believe in God just in case". I believe in God because He's real, and without believing in Him, I'm going to Hell. I believe in Him, and trust in Jesus' work on the cross because it's the only way of salvation.
If you want to place your faith in the eternality of the physical universe (which defies any observation that has ever been made or could be made), that's your prerogative.
If God doesn't exist, then there's no reason to argue about Him. If He does exist, then believing in anything else is unwise.
For long-term storage, I'd advocate rich text format, or straight-up text, maybe even HTML. Text is openable by anything, and hasn't changed since it was designed.
Unless God exists by Himself, without the need to be created. If there is an infinite supreme being, then He wouldn't have needed to be made. If you belive that God is infinitely bigger than the universe, then it stands to reason that He is inifinitely bigger than time, and could have created time as a concession to finite creatures such as ourselves.
It isn't possible to have rational exchanges with most of these people, which is truly a shame.