Those old changes changed the defined value as well. In fact, what the origional poster was proposing would be to move it back to the older definition in order to get the "ideal" 24 hour days.
Yes, the definitions have changed the definiendum. But the change has been very small. Moreover, the change has not necessitated the need for conditional logic when determining how a clock should work. They've only made existing clocks run a little fast (or slow?) relative to the new definition.
If you look at Einstein's (or Newton's even) equations for gravitation, you'll see that it is an inverse square law. This means that the further away you are from an object, the weaker the gravitational force is. Indeed, if you move twice as far away from an object, the force is four times weaker.
Black holes have an associated event horizon. This is more or less the closest light can get without being sucked in. Obviously, the force of gravity is monumentally strong here. It is stronger still inside. But if you're outside of the event horizon, light can escape. If we're 2 event horizon units away from a black hole, the gravitational force is a fourth of what it is at the event horizon. Still a tremendous force, but light can escape.
What's going on here is that xrays are being produced as an object moves towards the event horizon. I'm not sure the mechanism that causes this. I'm a math guy, not a physicist. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us both.
You could also have Hawking Radiation in mind. I don't know anything about that. In fact, I'll click that linky myself.
Linux "just works". As has always been the case, initial setup might be more problematic.
I don't think you know what the phrase "just works" is supposed to mean. A computer system just works if it works correctly the first time it is used without initial setup. This is just a necessary condition for just working. If it stops working for some reason, it doesn't just work. In fact, it doesn't work at all.
You might say that Linux or Linux related technologies work. They work very well, in fact. But they often don't just work.
Agreed. Reporters could encourage anonymous whistleblowers to use technologies like Tor. They might even set up a web form on their domain that only accepts Tor connections.
Of course, the main goal is to protect the whistleblower's anonymity, but another goal is to make the whistleblower confident that he will remain anonymous. Otherwise he won't blow his whistle. Unless he understands how these technologies work, he won't. Face to face (or face to shadow) communication seems preferable.
In the absence of friction, it would move sinusoidally from one corner (through the minimal point you mentioned) to the other. This is because of conservation of energy.
Yes, this is true. However, it was widely assumed that differences in architecture would keep OS X from running on commodity hardware. Instead, the story indicates that Apple will use DRM to achieve this end. This is far more onerous, because it may limit the rights of legitimate customers.
So, in reality we need more people to bring forth non-binding resolutions. Yes, a non-binding resolution will change everything...no, wait it does "NOTHING". Non-binding, i.e., optional. What kind of impact does a optional, ignore whenever you want, resolution change anything for a multi-billion dollar corporation?
Since you have resorted to repeating yourself, I shall do the same.
People like you are what's wrong with America. You're completely spineless. You're "for change" but are unwilling to do anything because you don't think anything will happen. Brilliant. Amazing. You can predict the future. You know this resolution will fail. You won't vote for change because you know nobody will notice that a large percentage of the shareholders are against oppressing a billion people. The media won't notice that and raise a big stink about it and they certainly won't help change anything. So why bother trying?
Because it is in your power to try. Indeed, it is your moral duty to do so.
I'm not trying to bring your comment down, but I think it's interesting how many times Nazi analogies have been used in this thread without anyone invoking Goodwin's Law. These analogies, for once, actually work.
People like you are what's wrong with America. You're completely spineless. You're "for change" but are unwilling to do anything because you don't think anything will happen. Brilliant. Amazing. You can predict the future. You know this resolution will fail. You won't vote for change because you know nobody will notice that a large percentage of the shareholders are against oppressing a billion people. The media won't notice that and raise a big stink about it and they certainly won't help change anything. So why bother trying?
Because it is in your power to try. Indeed, it is your moral duty to do so.
And, no, as a shareholder in Cisco I am not morally responsible for human rights violations. I being an owner am not actually making those decisions. I, as a shareholder, elected people to run the company and they make those decisions. If I don't like it I can elect a different board of directors or sell my ownership, but in the way the stock market work and capital ownership works I don't have day to day control and I really question whether I am morally responsible for anything I don't control. It's like saying I am morally responsible for what actions the President of the United States does if I voted for him. Does it make me responsible? No, don't think so.
You are morally responsible for crimes committed by the President, if you knew he was going to commit them when you voted. And you are morally responsible for human rights violations if you support a company that helps commit them. You know full well what these routers are for. They're going to be used to silence a billion people, and you just want to profit from it.
Regarding the hitman analogy: the disanalogy you mentioned is irrelevant. If you feel that you must, consider an analogy where you help finance a hitman's operations. Should you finance a hitman because it's a competitive market and you'll make a profit?(Hint: no.)
The second has been defined in many different ways by the scientific community. But you'll note that the difference between an "old second" and a "new second" was nearly zero at the time the change was made. That is, measuring relative to the new second, the old second and it coincided nearly perfectly.
The fundamental difference the GP was alluding to was with respect to changes in definition which preserve the defined value, and changes in definition that don't.
A simple analogy: You come up with a neat mathematical function, and implement a library for it. Now, your library gets used by millions of people. But oh noes! You figured out a way to implement the function twice as quickly! What will you do?
All you have to do is come out with a new version of the library with the new algorithm replacing the old. Nothing will break unless you change the way the function relates to programs that use it.
Changing the way the second relates to people will break a lot of things.
If tomorrow Cisco stopped selling to China Juniper or another company would just take up the slack.
I was waiting for somebody to say this. It is utter non-sense to avoid moral responsibility because other people (hypothetically) wouldn't. Yes, somebody might take up the slack. But then you wouldn't be morally responsible. Would you justify being a hitman by saying that if you didn't kill, somebody else would? Presumably not. Then how can you justify actively participating in silencing a billion people?
Not really... this would be more like blaming gun manufacturers for selling to the Chinese. And that would be blameworthy, since, presumably, gun manufacturers would realize that the Chinese are going to use their guns to oppress one billion people.
DUR, the GP wasn't referring to the right to choose to work without compensation. People volunteer their time to charities all the time.
But consider this scenario. You are enamored with a charity, and think you could work there for the rest of your life. You wouldn't even need to be paid. Your love for the job would sustain you.
So you sign a contract saying you'll work for the rest of your life without renumeration. Three weeks later, you're starving and want to quit the job. Should you be forced to work until you die? (Hint: No.)
What if, instead of starving and wanting to quit, you were just starving? Should you work until you die of starvation? (Hint: No.)
ActionTec has half-decent DSL modems that double as a wired router and wireless access point.
Yup. They run Linux. If you telnet in, both the login and password are "admin." You can telnet in from both the LAN and WAN sides. Indeed, you can connect to the web administration page from the WAN side. And the CGI script is broken enough to let you open arbitrary files. If it weren't for an utterly complete lack of functionality, I'd be very worried.
Yes... understood. Continuing your analogy, I was trying to stop Carl from eavesdropping. But Carl can take Alice's private key by force (by reverse engineering the executable). I wasn't taking that into consideration. That makes the problem much harder, and I suspect makes variations of my "solution" impossible.
Yes... but I'm not so sure the app would be so easy to hack. My suggestion was to use what amounts to a public key crypto system to verify the applet's consistency. This can be made as strong as you'd like. I suspect the weakness in the scheme resides not with this issue, but with the screen capture issue presented.
This doesn't sound too hard. How about a java app that checks a simple hash to make sure it was loaded from an authorized (i.e., your) site. Make it generate a hash of itself (or some essential variable that uniquely identifies your site), and establish an encrypted channel to 1) authenticate itself with the server. 2) recieve text to turn into a CAPTCHA. 3) send the user interpretation of the CAPTCHA for authentication. It might be a bit of a pain to implement, but that only has to be done once. This might even be a great open source project.
Slashdot Mirror
At least somebody got it. :-)
Yes, the definitions have changed the definiendum. But the change has been very small. Moreover, the change has not necessitated the need for conditional logic when determining how a clock should work. They've only made existing clocks run a little fast (or slow?) relative to the new definition.
Black holes have an associated event horizon. This is more or less the closest light can get without being sucked in. Obviously, the force of gravity is monumentally strong here. It is stronger still inside. But if you're outside of the event horizon, light can escape. If we're 2 event horizon units away from a black hole, the gravitational force is a fourth of what it is at the event horizon. Still a tremendous force, but light can escape.
What's going on here is that xrays are being produced as an object moves towards the event horizon. I'm not sure the mechanism that causes this. I'm a math guy, not a physicist. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us both.
You could also have Hawking Radiation in mind. I don't know anything about that. In fact, I'll click that linky myself.
Oh, I stopped watching tv years ago. It's amazing how much time you'd have to talk about not watching tv if you stopped watching tv.
Because the part that suffices does so in virtue of being a response to the problem presented before.
Snape is the Half-Blood Prince and kills Dumbledore.
I don't think you know what the phrase "just works" is supposed to mean. A computer system just works if it works correctly the first time it is used without initial setup. This is just a necessary condition for just working. If it stops working for some reason, it doesn't just work. In fact, it doesn't work at all.
You might say that Linux or Linux related technologies work. They work very well, in fact. But they often don't just work.
Agreed. Reporters could encourage anonymous whistleblowers to use technologies like Tor. They might even set up a web form on their domain that only accepts Tor connections.
Of course, the main goal is to protect the whistleblower's anonymity, but another goal is to make the whistleblower confident that he will remain anonymous. Otherwise he won't blow his whistle. Unless he understands how these technologies work, he won't. Face to face (or face to shadow) communication seems preferable.
How hard was it to recompile the WebKit? Are there any particular issues to look out for?
In the absence of friction, it would move sinusoidally from one corner (through the minimal point you mentioned) to the other. This is because of conservation of energy.
Yes, this is true. However, it was widely assumed that differences in architecture would keep OS X from running on commodity hardware. Instead, the story indicates that Apple will use DRM to achieve this end. This is far more onerous, because it may limit the rights of legitimate customers.
Since you have resorted to repeating yourself, I shall do the same.
People like you are what's wrong with America. You're completely spineless. You're "for change" but are unwilling to do anything because you don't think anything will happen. Brilliant. Amazing. You can predict the future. You know this resolution will fail. You won't vote for change because you know nobody will notice that a large percentage of the shareholders are against oppressing a billion people. The media won't notice that and raise a big stink about it and they certainly won't help change anything. So why bother trying?
Because it is in your power to try. Indeed, it is your moral duty to do so.
I'm not trying to bring your comment down, but I think it's interesting how many times Nazi analogies have been used in this thread without anyone invoking Goodwin's Law. These analogies, for once, actually work.
Because it is in your power to try. Indeed, it is your moral duty to do so.
The second has been defined in many different ways by the scientific community. But you'll note that the difference between an "old second" and a "new second" was nearly zero at the time the change was made. That is, measuring relative to the new second, the old second and it coincided nearly perfectly.
The fundamental difference the GP was alluding to was with respect to changes in definition which preserve the defined value, and changes in definition that don't.
A simple analogy: You come up with a neat mathematical function, and implement a library for it. Now, your library gets used by millions of people. But oh noes! You figured out a way to implement the function twice as quickly! What will you do?
All you have to do is come out with a new version of the library with the new algorithm replacing the old. Nothing will break unless you change the way the function relates to programs that use it.
Changing the way the second relates to people will break a lot of things.
I was waiting for somebody to say this. It is utter non-sense to avoid moral responsibility because other people (hypothetically) wouldn't. Yes, somebody might take up the slack. But then you wouldn't be morally responsible. Would you justify being a hitman by saying that if you didn't kill, somebody else would? Presumably not. Then how can you justify actively participating in silencing a billion people?
Not really... this would be more like blaming gun manufacturers for selling to the Chinese. And that would be blameworthy, since, presumably, gun manufacturers would realize that the Chinese are going to use their guns to oppress one billion people.
And they sky might fall tomorrow. That doesn't mean there's any significant chance of that happening.
But consider this scenario. You are enamored with a charity, and think you could work there for the rest of your life. You wouldn't even need to be paid. Your love for the job would sustain you.
So you sign a contract saying you'll work for the rest of your life without renumeration. Three weeks later, you're starving and want to quit the job. Should you be forced to work until you die? (Hint: No.)
What if, instead of starving and wanting to quit, you were just starving? Should you work until you die of starvation? (Hint: No.)
Yup. They run Linux. If you telnet in, both the login and password are "admin." You can telnet in from both the LAN and WAN sides. Indeed, you can connect to the web administration page from the WAN side. And the CGI script is broken enough to let you open arbitrary files. If it weren't for an utterly complete lack of functionality, I'd be very worried.
No one is going to be giving their friends iPods full of music. Or if they are, I would like to become their friend.
Yes... understood. Continuing your analogy, I was trying to stop Carl from eavesdropping. But Carl can take Alice's private key by force (by reverse engineering the executable). I wasn't taking that into consideration. That makes the problem much harder, and I suspect makes variations of my "solution" impossible.
Yes... but I'm not so sure the app would be so easy to hack. My suggestion was to use what amounts to a public key crypto system to verify the applet's consistency. This can be made as strong as you'd like. I suspect the weakness in the scheme resides not with this issue, but with the screen capture issue presented.
This doesn't sound too hard. How about a java app that checks a simple hash to make sure it was loaded from an authorized (i.e., your) site. Make it generate a hash of itself (or some essential variable that uniquely identifies your site), and establish an encrypted channel to 1) authenticate itself with the server. 2) recieve text to turn into a CAPTCHA. 3) send the user interpretation of the CAPTCHA for authentication. It might be a bit of a pain to implement, but that only has to be done once. This might even be a great open source project.