And my M$ tax refund? Like I said, one of the things they were insisting on was activating Windows before the unit left the store.
Here - a car analogy for your entertainment:
[Salesman]: "All right - now that you've signed the loan agreements, the car is yours. Just let our maintenance staff use it for half an hour - you know, to make sure the speedometer and odometer work correctly, pre-set your radio stations for you and make sure the seats and mirrors are adjusted just right. Oh, and I guess you'll be buying the additional warranty on that - I know you want to opt out, but our service personnel are going to put that warranty in place and rack up your first fifty miles. This way, please . . . "
[Customer]: "Hey, it's my car, right? Why can't I just drive it off the lot?"
[Salesman]: "Oh, that'll take my manager's approval."
(a few minutes later)
[Manager]: "Y'know, we really don't like to let customers take their cars off the lot like that - they'll get the seats all wrong and then they'll complain that we should fix it. Worse yet, they won't even have an extended warranty and worst of all our maintenance personnel won't even know what radio stations are set. Are you sure you can drive your new car all by yourself? You really ought to let us cruise up to Filthy McNasty's before you take the wheel - it's better for you. Just trust me, you can't possibly know enough about cars to drive this one without us setting your mirrors up for you first."
I might have argued with you, up until last year . . .
I went to buy a desktop machine there last year. Irritating enough that I couldn't buy naked metal, but I'm used to the M$ tax. I just don't activate and sell 'em back their OEM license (which requires enough jumping through hoops, Dell makes it practically impossible). Well, the salesman there says "Okay, I'll run this up to the Geek Squad counter so they can activate your copy of Windows and get your machine ready for you". Well, when I told him "no, I'm planning to install Linux on it when I get it home", suddenly I have a problem. Seems it takes a Manager to authorize sale of a PC without the Geek Squad activating Windows (and doing G*D knows what else).
Had to argue with the Manager for twenty minutes before he finally let me buy the PC in the box under factory seal. He seemed to feel that I was going to damage the hardware somehow by my personal incompetence and then hold Best Buy to blame for the damages. I swear, the guy had the I.Q. of a turnip, yet here he was making sure I knew just how foolish and uninformed he thought I was not letting their cast of script-kiddie wannabes manhandle and mangle my machine before I got my hands on it. I suppose over twenty-five years working in the IT industry doesn't qualify me to manage my own hardware and software. *Sigh*
It all fell apart when the Manager insisted I sign a document waiving my warranty because I wouldn't let the Geek Squad play "Solitaire" on it before selling me my hardware (actually, I believe they were interested in activating Windows, running Windows Update, ensuring the Symantec A/V product was installed and updated and setting some default settings which they believe are smarter than the Windows defaults). He really didn't seem to get that even IF I was interested in an antivirus solution it sure as hell wouldn't be Symantec, and he also didn't understand that once installed it damned near takes an act of Congress to get it to uninstall. He also didn't understand that in all probability I'm considerably more qualified than any of their snot-nosed Geek Squad twerps even in the area of Windows System Administration. In short, he didn't get it and kept insisting that I was being foolish.
I ended up buying my host from - brace yourself - Fingerhut, of all places. Sure, I still paid the M$ tax (and spent three months getting my M$ tax refund), but if I'd let the geeks at Best Buy touch it, I wouldn't have been able to do that. And like I said, it's a lot easier not to install Symantec A/V then it is to uninstall it.
Agreed. The Sun is just an incredibly large hot gas giant, not necessarily too different from Jupiter in many regards.
There are differences - magnetism plays a larger role since the Sun is made of plasma and not gas. There aren't too many objects in the solar system which can exert a tremendous gravitic influence on the Sun. Unlike Jupiter (or most planets, for that matter), the Sun's core is cooler than it's surface. The weather may have some different properties, but it's still weather.
Oops - this was just a reference to equivalencies, not the actual speeds. Mea culpa.
And yes - with conversions comes the question of precision. If they'd said 3x10^6km/hr, it would've meant anywhere from 250,001km/hr - 350,000km/hr. A conversion to read as 2x10^6mi/hr would be fairly sloppy IMHO, but within bounds.
But it doesn't matter whether we use a gravity tug, a physically attached rocket tug, lasers or any other technology. At the end of the day the energy requirements are the same. We have to apply a considerable amount of force over a considerable amount of time. Even if we could come up with a long enough extension cord to plug satellite based lasers into the wall, the electric bill would be enormous. Incidentally, what's the energy efficiency on your average high-power laser? Also, how much of that energy ends up as delta-v when the lasers paint yon incoming asteroid?
At least a gravity tug doesn't require a constant input of energy to function - but even a gravity tug will end up costing the same amount of energy to do the same amount of work. Physics is a bitch - if we need a 3% delta-v on a billion-ton object, we need to pony up x amount of energy to do it.
Equally likely - Theia and Earth Mk. I collide. Theia's mass is incorporated into Earth Mk. I and a similar (if smaller) mass is ejected from Earth Mk. I. Now Earth Mk. II and the Moon appear to share similar constituents - except that the Moon appears to be composed of the crust of Earth Mk. I (the relative scarcity of heavier elements in the Moon gives credence to this idea).
You missed something - there are (arguably well justified) laws pertaining to the manufacture and sale of genetically modified produce.
It may not be illegal for you to grow sunflowers. I can't even complain when sunflowers start growing in my yard. If you plant genetically modified sunflowers, I don't even need to prove their harmful - I pretty much only need to allege that I suffered harm from unknowingly eating a genetically modified sunflower seed. I may not win soon (or ever), but I'll sure have you tied up in court for a while!
Monsanto's GM products are finding their way into places where they were not (necessarily) wanted.
If my farm's product is supposed to be organic, wholly natural agricultural products, imagine the damages resulting from finding out that said farm is actually producing genetically modified produce. Why, that could destroy the whole farm, not just the current crop.
Countersue. Monsanto's product was not adequately controlled and got out of control. Why, there might even be some (extremely major) criminal liability on Montsanto's part.
According to that logic, there can't even be a "something you are". Even, say, typing rhythms or voiceprint analysis can be defeated by a gun to the head and an order to get logged in. They took my (typing rhythm/voice) and made it theirs by force.
Incidentally, I didn't come up with that "Something you have, something you are, something you know" bit . . . just mentioned it here because it seemed relevant. Let's face it, there is no such thing as perfect security - but when it's more trouble than it's worth to defeat security, that's pretty much good enough. If you have to spend a couple decades in jail for cutting off my finger to steal a few hundred dollars, I'd say it's not worth it.
Unfortunately, not everyone will see it that way. Durn shame, I kinda like my fingertips right where they are.
Somebody mod me down one (back to 1) . . . while my major point (that while the math models the universe, the universe doesn't necessarily obey the math) remains, I made some factually incorrect statements.
"Something you have, something you know and something you are. Pick two out of three."
Hence, RSA tokens + passwords (something you have + something you know)
Smart cards + biometrics (not perfect, but something you have + something you are)
Or even all three, for the truly paraniod (smart card + biometric scan + password)
Even with all three, a sufficiently determined entity with sufficient resources can overcome it. Video recording + physical acquisition of the owned object + physical acquisition of the biometric object (hope it's just a fingerprint scan and not a retinal scan!) will get an intruder past the security trifecta.
What next, DNA + mind scan + a password > 512 bytes?
I was about to admit that I was completely mistaken, that in this particular case the quark/antiquark annihilation doesn't take place because of the issue of confinement but that in many other cases such annihilation does indeed seem to take place.
You're right that I missed a point: Quark/antiquark annihilation requires that the quark and antiquark be "unconfined".
The observed decay of certain mesons (giving rise to two photons in the case of the pi-muon, for example) is theorized with a high degree of confidence to be the result of a quark/antiquark annihilation.
In the case of a bottom quark confined with a bottom anti-quark (the boson mentioned above) - confinement means that quark/antiquark annihilation is undefined, since the quark and antiquark are confined, and ever so shall be.
Incidentally, there is a differnce between "nonsense" and "mistaken", you insensitive clod.
Let's start by understanding that many of the subatomic particles we believe exist have never been "seen", per se. We have indirect observations, combined with mathematical models which appear to make good predictions about what we may observe when specific interactions occur.
In many cases, the mathematical models are created to explain a given observation and then tested by predicting what may be observed under different circumstances. Quark theory is just one such set of mathematical models. It appears to correctly predict what certain subatomic interactions will look like when we manage to experimentally create the right circumstances. Within quark theory, quark/antiquark annihilation is not defined, as that has not been necessary to explain the phenomena we have observed nor does it lead to any verifiable predictions.
At this point, I feel obliged to point out that merely because the mathematics produces good results and seems to model the real world well, that does not mean that the real world obeys the mathematics - only that we are evolving better and better tools for making predictions. When (if) it ever becomes necessary to model quark/antiquark annihilation to explain an observation the mathematics will be worked out and predictions made of what other interactions may look like. If the math results in a contradiction, the reasoning leading to that math will be reevaluated until it makes accurate predictions without resulting in contradictions.
In short, quark/antiquark annihilation does not take place because we have not defined that as a property of quarks. Until there is an observation which requires that definition, it will not be made. It is not a natural part of the mathematics of quark theory.
That's why I stopped running Gnome and switched to XFCE. Well, that and compiz.
Newspaper probably WON'T give RH the rights.
on
Righthaven Loses
·
· Score: 2
Here's why:
First, news-oriented websites may not like having their material blatantly stolen, but they do love being referred to, with appropriate credit. Assigning their rights to RightHaven would almost certainly have a chilling effect on their website's popularity, and that equals dollars lost, not dollars made.
Second, as part owner of the copyright, RightHaven would have a right to part of any proceeds the website might generate by authorizing a third party to use the copyrighted materials.
Third, as part owner of the copright, RightHaven would have the authority to forbid such third party use or impose their own conditions on such use.
Now, if the news agency in question were to hire RightHaven, that would give RIghtHaven the standing they need to refile the (recently dismissed) lawsuit while preserving the news agency's undisputed ownership of the copyrighted materials. However, even this could have a less than desirable effect on their readership. Once more, we're talking about dollars lost (although the news agency in question could see this issue differently).
Slashdot Mirror
Here - a car analogy for your entertainment:
[Salesman]: "All right - now that you've signed the loan agreements, the car is yours. Just let our maintenance staff use it for half an hour - you know, to make sure the speedometer and odometer work correctly, pre-set your radio stations for you and make sure the seats and mirrors are adjusted just right. Oh, and I guess you'll be buying the additional warranty on that - I know you want to opt out, but our service personnel are going to put that warranty in place and rack up your first fifty miles. This way, please . . . "
[Customer]: "Hey, it's my car, right? Why can't I just drive it off the lot?"
[Salesman]: "Oh, that'll take my manager's approval."
(a few minutes later)
[Manager]: "Y'know, we really don't like to let customers take their cars off the lot like that - they'll get the seats all wrong and then they'll complain that we should fix it. Worse yet, they won't even have an extended warranty and worst of all our maintenance personnel won't even know what radio stations are set. Are you sure you can drive your new car all by yourself? You really ought to let us cruise up to Filthy McNasty's before you take the wheel - it's better for you. Just trust me, you can't possibly know enough about cars to drive this one without us setting your mirrors up for you first."
[Customer]: "Screw this, I'm buyin' a horse!"
I went to buy a desktop machine there last year. Irritating enough that I couldn't buy naked metal, but I'm used to the M$ tax. I just don't activate and sell 'em back their OEM license (which requires enough jumping through hoops, Dell makes it practically impossible). Well, the salesman there says "Okay, I'll run this up to the Geek Squad counter so they can activate your copy of Windows and get your machine ready for you". Well, when I told him "no, I'm planning to install Linux on it when I get it home", suddenly I have a problem. Seems it takes a Manager to authorize sale of a PC without the Geek Squad activating Windows (and doing G*D knows what else).
Had to argue with the Manager for twenty minutes before he finally let me buy the PC in the box under factory seal. He seemed to feel that I was going to damage the hardware somehow by my personal incompetence and then hold Best Buy to blame for the damages. I swear, the guy had the I.Q. of a turnip, yet here he was making sure I knew just how foolish and uninformed he thought I was not letting their cast of script-kiddie wannabes manhandle and mangle my machine before I got my hands on it. I suppose over twenty-five years working in the IT industry doesn't qualify me to manage my own hardware and software. *Sigh*
It all fell apart when the Manager insisted I sign a document waiving my warranty because I wouldn't let the Geek Squad play "Solitaire" on it before selling me my hardware (actually, I believe they were interested in activating Windows, running Windows Update, ensuring the Symantec A/V product was installed and updated and setting some default settings which they believe are smarter than the Windows defaults). He really didn't seem to get that even IF I was interested in an antivirus solution it sure as hell wouldn't be Symantec, and he also didn't understand that once installed it damned near takes an act of Congress to get it to uninstall. He also didn't understand that in all probability I'm considerably more qualified than any of their snot-nosed Geek Squad twerps even in the area of Windows System Administration. In short, he didn't get it and kept insisting that I was being foolish.
I ended up buying my host from - brace yourself - Fingerhut, of all places. Sure, I still paid the M$ tax (and spent three months getting my M$ tax refund), but if I'd let the geeks at Best Buy touch it, I wouldn't have been able to do that. And like I said, it's a lot easier not to install Symantec A/V then it is to uninstall it.
Value of one hundred pennies - $1.00
Value of one sock - $1.98
The look on the guy's face when you hit him in the head with a sock full of pennies - priceless
Boy, just not my day. I've gotta stop posting from memory and start double-checking.
There are differences - magnetism plays a larger role since the Sun is made of plasma and not gas. There aren't too many objects in the solar system which can exert a tremendous gravitic influence on the Sun. Unlike Jupiter (or most planets, for that matter), the Sun's core is cooler than it's surface. The weather may have some different properties, but it's still weather.
Oh, and there's no damned shade anywhere.
And yes - with conversions comes the question of precision. If they'd said 3x10^6km/hr, it would've meant anywhere from 250,001km/hr - 350,000km/hr. A conversion to read as 2x10^6mi/hr would be fairly sloppy IMHO, but within bounds.
The top wind speeds reported were around 300,000km/h=186,000mi/h. that's a factor of 3600:1.
Still - it'd be interesting to know if relativistic effects are present.
But it doesn't matter whether we use a gravity tug, a physically attached rocket tug, lasers or any other technology. At the end of the day the energy requirements are the same. We have to apply a considerable amount of force over a considerable amount of time. Even if we could come up with a long enough extension cord to plug satellite based lasers into the wall, the electric bill would be enormous. Incidentally, what's the energy efficiency on your average high-power laser? Also, how much of that energy ends up as delta-v when the lasers paint yon incoming asteroid?
At least a gravity tug doesn't require a constant input of energy to function - but even a gravity tug will end up costing the same amount of energy to do the same amount of work. Physics is a bitch - if we need a 3% delta-v on a billion-ton object, we need to pony up x amount of energy to do it.
Easy peasy!
Well played, sir! Well played!
It may not be illegal for you to grow sunflowers. I can't even complain when sunflowers start growing in my yard. If you plant genetically modified sunflowers, I don't even need to prove their harmful - I pretty much only need to allege that I suffered harm from unknowingly eating a genetically modified sunflower seed. I may not win soon (or ever), but I'll sure have you tied up in court for a while!
Y'know, that's exactly what they told the Wright brothers, and Orville still managed to make Wilbur fly . . .
Google brings me porn, warez and pirate music/video. All Apple's ever done is prove themselves one of the biggest patent whores on the planet.
Damn! That doesn't settle a thing. Guess I won't trust either of 'em.
If my farm's product is supposed to be organic, wholly natural agricultural products, imagine the damages resulting from finding out that said farm is actually producing genetically modified produce. Why, that could destroy the whole farm, not just the current crop.
Countersue. Monsanto's product was not adequately controlled and got out of control. Why, there might even be some (extremely major) criminal liability on Montsanto's part.
IANAL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project
But we prize form over function. Server down - that's okay. Form not completely and correctly filled out? That's a FIRING offense.
Incidentally, I didn't come up with that "Something you have, something you are, something you know" bit . . . just mentioned it here because it seemed relevant. Let's face it, there is no such thing as perfect security - but when it's more trouble than it's worth to defeat security, that's pretty much good enough. If you have to spend a couple decades in jail for cutting off my finger to steal a few hundred dollars, I'd say it's not worth it.
Unfortunately, not everyone will see it that way. Durn shame, I kinda like my fingertips right where they are.
Somebody mod me down one (back to 1) . . . while my major point (that while the math models the universe, the universe doesn't necessarily obey the math) remains, I made some factually incorrect statements.
Hence, RSA tokens + passwords (something you have + something you know)
Smart cards + biometrics (not perfect, but something you have + something you are)
Or even all three, for the truly paraniod (smart card + biometric scan + password)
Even with all three, a sufficiently determined entity with sufficient resources can overcome it. Video recording + physical acquisition of the owned object + physical acquisition of the biometric object (hope it's just a fingerprint scan and not a retinal scan!) will get an intruder past the security trifecta.
What next, DNA + mind scan + a password > 512 bytes?
I was about to admit that I was completely mistaken, that in this particular case the quark/antiquark annihilation doesn't take place because of the issue of confinement but that in many other cases such annihilation does indeed seem to take place.
But . . . never mind.
The observed decay of certain mesons (giving rise to two photons in the case of the pi-muon, for example) is theorized with a high degree of confidence to be the result of a quark/antiquark annihilation.
In the case of a bottom quark confined with a bottom anti-quark (the boson mentioned above) - confinement means that quark/antiquark annihilation is undefined, since the quark and antiquark are confined, and ever so shall be.
Incidentally, there is a differnce between "nonsense" and "mistaken", you insensitive clod.
Let's start by understanding that many of the subatomic particles we believe exist have never been "seen", per se. We have indirect observations, combined with mathematical models which appear to make good predictions about what we may observe when specific interactions occur.
In many cases, the mathematical models are created to explain a given observation and then tested by predicting what may be observed under different circumstances. Quark theory is just one such set of mathematical models. It appears to correctly predict what certain subatomic interactions will look like when we manage to experimentally create the right circumstances. Within quark theory, quark/antiquark annihilation is not defined, as that has not been necessary to explain the phenomena we have observed nor does it lead to any verifiable predictions.
At this point, I feel obliged to point out that merely because the mathematics produces good results and seems to model the real world well, that does not mean that the real world obeys the mathematics - only that we are evolving better and better tools for making predictions. When (if) it ever becomes necessary to model quark/antiquark annihilation to explain an observation the mathematics will be worked out and predictions made of what other interactions may look like. If the math results in a contradiction, the reasoning leading to that math will be reevaluated until it makes accurate predictions without resulting in contradictions.
In short, quark/antiquark annihilation does not take place because we have not defined that as a property of quarks. Until there is an observation which requires that definition, it will not be made. It is not a natural part of the mathematics of quark theory.
Just sayin'.
That's why I stopped running Gnome and switched to XFCE. Well, that and compiz.
First, news-oriented websites may not like having their material blatantly stolen, but they do love being referred to, with appropriate credit. Assigning their rights to RightHaven would almost certainly have a chilling effect on their website's popularity, and that equals dollars lost, not dollars made.
Second, as part owner of the copyright, RightHaven would have a right to part of any proceeds the website might generate by authorizing a third party to use the copyrighted materials.
Third, as part owner of the copright, RightHaven would have the authority to forbid such third party use or impose their own conditions on such use.
Now, if the news agency in question were to hire RightHaven, that would give RIghtHaven the standing they need to refile the (recently dismissed) lawsuit while preserving the news agency's undisputed ownership of the copyrighted materials. However, even this could have a less than desirable effect on their readership. Once more, we're talking about dollars lost (although the news agency in question could see this issue differently).