Where are you getting your information that Mars is larger?
Here is the data sheet at Nasa. Notice that the radius, mass and density are all smaller than earth, so in what way is Mars larger? The mass is ~1/10, the radius is ~1/2 and the density is ~3/4.
Well if you really want to understand the journal article, you need to do what researchers do, a literature search. The Nature article references a Physical review letters article which has further references which you can look up. This process generally takes at least a few days (if you have access to a good research library) and an understanding of the basic concepts involved (this is why NYT doesn't reference "evanescent waves" but the Nature article does, Nature expects anyone reading the article to understand the basic concepts involved) IAAP (I am a Physicist) but this is not my area of expertise, IIRC evanescent waves are the part of the wave that enters a surface (for instance the cladding around an optical fiber) and propagates through it for a short distance rather than being reflected back into the incident medium. As to why they can't carry information the Physical review article goes into this in a little more depth, I suggest you try to read it (though it is more technical than the Nature article so might not be of much use to you but the relavent section is the last couple of paragraphs of the article.)
in case you haven't seen it here is an excellent explaination of how nearly unlimited bandwidth is a solution to many problems. I suspect similar things could be done on chip using optics rather than electrons (ie think 50,000 parallel processes)
Actually the most compelling reason is the HUGE bandwidth available in the optical frequncies. Although electrons have a large frequency range, light, because it doesn't interact with itself can transmit at all the frequencies available at once. Additionally you can do interesting things with the wave nature of light, interferrence, holography, which are not as easy to do with electrons because their wavelength is so much shorter.
Here is an interesting and completely reasonable outlook on what the internet could become in an all optical age. Of course it requires that the telcos permit it.
Well RIAA has decided to go after newsreader decoders I think that the penthouse action is a lot more reasonable that this kind of idiocy. Thankfully Andover is supporting them legally.
Re:In related news: Andover are doing their bit to
on
Red Hat Helps Fund EFF
·
· Score: 2
This is yet another case of the RIAA being boneheaded. Thanks for the info, I hadn't heard of this one yet. So if they are going after this why aren't they going after MS outlook, and all the other newsreaders that can decode MIME attachments. Jeez.
Seems like the standard, were going after you because you can't stand up for your self so we're sure you'll just roll over when our lawyer sends you a nasty letter. It doesn't matter if we're right or wrong, lets see who's left standing after our Mack truck rolls over your tricycle.
It seems to me that the value of that data is part of the reason it can be dangerous. Yes Doubleclick doesn't just give out that data to anyone, because its valuable, instead they (and others like them) sell the latest data to the highest bidder who you may not want to have this data.
I don't necessarily have a major problem with Doubleclick collecting this kind of information for themselves, but why don't I control the transfer of that information to third parties, this is what really bothers me.
Yes this feature in IE is useful (more useful if you get the power toys that allow you to do this on the fly through the toolbar).
However it recently came to my attention that the default "High" security isn't as high as it should be a bit higher, two thing the default doens't switch off are active scripting(JavaScript) and ActiveX controls from trusted sources (Why would the site be in the restricted zone if it was in any way affiliated with a "trusted" source). These deficits are easily corrected by going in and making changes to the restricted sites security model.
Additionally if you use Outlook of some description you should switch to reading the e-mail in the restricted security zone (this already saved me from an Active X worm).
Also if you want you can also disable *.doubleclick.net and *.flycast.com by adding them to the HOSTS file in the windows directory and redirecting them to 127.0.0.1
Actually if you read the legend properly the plate is only 5mil out of flat (0.005") or 5 thou. This means that lapping out that amount of surface inaccuracy, while possible is a pain plus a very flat surface is needed to lap it on.
He did measure the heatsink (3rd page of the article) but didn't plot it because he found it was flat.
At least he's lapping it in the right pattern (figure 8 gives flat, circles give curved surfaces). I wonder if he has a precision flat that he's lapping it against, if you want to lap 3 mils off the surface your lapping on should be flatter than that, no your kitchen table won't work.
The problem is that there isn't a good conduct remedy to keep them from weasling out. Microsoft proved that they can't be trusted to follow through with agreed upon conduct changes, let alone ones thrust upon them. Conduct remedies are part of it but the structural remedies are needed so that the OS has to provide the APIs to everyone (including the Apps division) equally.
The gov't is looking for a break up as the last option Microsoft already showed it couldn't be trusted with a conduct remedy. The gov't isn't going to make the same mistake twice.
This won't necessarilly insulate you from this sort of idiocy (IANAL, etc.). IIRC recently a few people were brought up on federal(?) charges for running a (sports) gambling site that was physically located in Antigua(sp?), where gambling is legal.
Just a slightly offtopic response to the drug war comment.
Marion Barry(sp?) was arrested in a cocaine sting and was elected to mayor of Washington DC after he was released from prison.
More recently the wife of the top drug enforcment officer stationed in Columbia was found to have been smuggling drugs into the country in diplomatic satchels.
It seems to me that the drug laws are routinely disregarded in the US. (The fact that a huge percentage of the US prison population are convicted on drug related offences bears this out.)
Yes Yes. I agree completely. Google is terrific at getting to actual content without having to filter through tons of crap (try a search on cheerleading no porn at all).
Altavista can be ok, even without the filter but you need to remember to require all terms, and not use ones commonly in porn sites (like cheerleeding). It is much easier to accidentally get porn sites from searches on Altavista (particularly if you are a novice).
Not to dissmiss the above post (some of the gov'ts actions during the cold war are indefensable) but hanford is not (at least primarily,if at all) a power plant, it was designed to create the nuclear material necessary to make our nuclear arsenal. This does two things, it puts it out of the public eye, under cover of national security, and especially in the early days of the cold war/last days of WWII causes a strong impetus to get things done as quickly as possible (nuclear arms race/manhattan project), thus Hanford is probably a bad example of the nuclear power industry as a whole (which has its own set of problems, which the release of radioactive materials is not a major one, waste is more serious)
Actually doesn't/. under the DMCA only have 48 hours to respond (ie. take down "offending" material or be sued) to Microsoft. They can then have the material which was removed put back up at the request of the original poster, who under penalty of perjury says that Microsoft was wrong, and then Microsoft can go after the poster if it chooses to.
I don't necessarilly think that this is what/. should do, only that I think if they wait longer than 48hrs their choices are severly limited.
Thus I'd like to hear what their lawyers said, and what they are planning (ie are they not going to act on the request in 48hrs (btw has this already passed?))
But of course it completely up to the editors to choose what to tell us, this is just what I'd like to hear.
I have another question, if Microsoft submitted this under penalties of perjury are they not in fact now guilty of this, ie haven't they perjured themselves.
I think that this "under penalty of perjury" garbage isn't taken seriously enough, maybe if the Microsoft lawyer was sent to prison for a couple of years for a false claim we'd see less of this kind of stupidity. (Or at least they would be much more careful about it.)
And if you want to still use Javascript at certain sites but not promiscuously;) get IE power toys (tools) at the microsoft web site and set up the internet zone as the other people have said and set the trusted zone to allow javascript (since some sites won't work at all without javascript).
The power tools allow you to switch a site into the trusted zone just by clicking
Tools>Add to Trusted zone
and you can delete the site from your trusted list in the usual manner (Tools>InternetOptions...>security>trusted sites remove)
This makes it easier to allow cookies at Slashdot and not at Joe Website who hates all people and will screw them over any chance he gets.
Isn't it also a prized art in embedded systems programming where the hardware limitations force programmers to "eke every bit of performance" out of every clock cycle/memory usage?
The...'s in the header leave out some important information (though the link supplies it)
that the article reads fully :
`(2) PROHIBITION- It shall be unlawful for any person--
`(A) to teach or demonstrate the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime; or
`(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime.
The distribution of the information rquires intent or the knowledge of intent of the person to whom you're giving the information. This is still chilling but it isn't quite as bad as the heading to the article suggests.
I feel that we should try to curtail drug use and manufacture, but when did it become a battle to win at any cost, including free speech.
I would suggest if you live in a state represented by the authors of the bill: Mr. CANNON, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. ROGAN, Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. PICKERING, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. CANADY of Florida, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. GALLEGLY, and Mr. SALMON
You talk to them and ask if fighting drug manufacture and use is a sufficient reson to risk first amendment rights.
Actually all their killer testing equipment, and that cool stethoscope was spun off as Agilent now HP only does computing/peripherals/storage. (Note the hyperlink goes to Agilent not HP)
Slashdot Mirror
Time to get out the cluestick....
Whack, Whack, Whack
Where are you getting your information that Mars is larger?
Here is the data sheet at Nasa. Notice that the radius, mass and density are all smaller than earth, so in what way is Mars larger? The mass is ~1/10, the radius is ~1/2 and the density is ~3/4.
Well if you really want to understand the journal article, you need to do what researchers do, a literature search. The Nature article references a Physical review letters article which has further references which you can look up. This process generally takes at least a few days (if you have access to a good research library) and an understanding of the basic concepts involved (this is why NYT doesn't reference "evanescent waves" but the Nature article does, Nature expects anyone reading the article to understand the basic concepts involved) IAAP (I am a Physicist) but this is not my area of expertise, IIRC evanescent waves are the part of the wave that enters a surface (for instance the cladding around an optical fiber) and propagates through it for a short distance rather than being reflected back into the incident medium. As to why they can't carry information the Physical review article goes into this in a little more depth, I suggest you try to read it (though it is more technical than the Nature article so might not be of much use to you but the relavent section is the last couple of paragraphs of the article.)
in case you haven't seen it here is an excellent explaination of how nearly unlimited bandwidth is a solution to many problems. I suspect similar things could be done on chip using optics rather than electrons (ie think 50,000 parallel processes)
Actually the most compelling reason is the HUGE bandwidth available in the optical frequncies. Although electrons have a large frequency range, light, because it doesn't interact with itself can transmit at all the frequencies available at once. Additionally you can do interesting things with the wave nature of light, interferrence, holography, which are not as easy to do with electrons because their wavelength is so much shorter.
Here is an interesting and completely reasonable outlook on what the internet could become in an all optical age. Of course it requires that the telcos permit it.
...and just as justified.
Well RIAA has decided to go after newsreader decoders I think that the penthouse action is a lot more reasonable that this kind of idiocy. Thankfully Andover is supporting them legally.
This is yet another case of the RIAA being boneheaded. Thanks for the info, I hadn't heard of this one yet. So if they are going after this why aren't they going after MS outlook, and all the other newsreaders that can decode MIME attachments. Jeez.
Seems like the standard, were going after you because you can't stand up for your self so we're sure you'll just roll over when our lawyer sends you a nasty letter. It doesn't matter if we're right or wrong, lets see who's left standing after our Mack truck rolls over your tricycle.
It seems to me that the value of that data is part of the reason it can be dangerous. Yes Doubleclick doesn't just give out that data to anyone, because its valuable, instead they (and others like them) sell the latest data to the highest bidder who you may not want to have this data.
I don't necessarily have a major problem with Doubleclick collecting this kind of information for themselves, but why don't I control the transfer of that information to third parties, this is what really bothers me.
Yes this feature in IE is useful (more useful if you get the power toys that allow you to do this on the fly through the toolbar).
However it recently came to my attention that the default "High" security isn't as high as it should be a bit higher, two thing the default doens't switch off are active scripting(JavaScript) and ActiveX controls from trusted sources (Why would the site be in the restricted zone if it was in any way affiliated with a "trusted" source). These deficits are easily corrected by going in and making changes to the restricted sites security model.
Additionally if you use Outlook of some description you should switch to reading the e-mail in the restricted security zone (this already saved me from an Active X worm).
Also if you want you can also disable *.doubleclick.net and *.flycast.com by adding them to the HOSTS file in the windows directory and redirecting them to 127.0.0.1
yes but regular plate glass is NOT that flat.
Sorry to burst his bubble.
Here's some actual honest to goodness research on the exact subject, cooling electronics. Imagine that.
Actually if you read the legend properly the plate is only 5mil out of flat (0.005") or 5 thou. This means that lapping out that amount of surface inaccuracy, while possible is a pain plus a very flat surface is needed to lap it on.
He did measure the heatsink (3rd page of the article) but didn't plot it because he found it was flat.
So true, that said,
At least he's lapping it in the right pattern (figure 8 gives flat, circles give curved surfaces). I wonder if he has a precision flat that he's lapping it against, if you want to lap 3 mils off the surface your lapping on should be flatter than that, no your kitchen table won't work.
The problem is that there isn't a good conduct remedy to keep them from weasling out. Microsoft proved that they can't be trusted to follow through with agreed upon conduct changes, let alone ones thrust upon them. Conduct remedies are part of it but the structural remedies are needed so that the OS has to provide the APIs to everyone (including the Apps division) equally.
The gov't is looking for a break up as the last option Microsoft already showed it couldn't be trusted with a conduct remedy. The gov't isn't going to make the same mistake twice.
This won't necessarilly insulate you from this sort of idiocy (IANAL, etc.). IIRC recently a few people were brought up on federal(?) charges for running a (sports) gambling site that was physically located in Antigua(sp?), where gambling is legal.
Just a slightly offtopic response to the drug war comment.
Marion Barry(sp?) was arrested in a cocaine sting and was elected to mayor of Washington DC after he was released from prison.
More recently the wife of the top drug enforcment officer stationed in Columbia was found to have been smuggling drugs into the country in diplomatic satchels.
It seems to me that the drug laws are routinely disregarded in the US. (The fact that a huge percentage of the US prison population are convicted on drug related offences bears this out.)
Yes Yes. I agree completely.
Google is terrific at getting to actual content without having to filter through tons of crap (try a search on cheerleading no porn at all).
Altavista can be ok, even without the filter but you need to remember to require all terms, and not use ones commonly in porn sites (like cheerleeding). It is much easier to accidentally get porn sites from searches on Altavista (particularly if you are a novice).
Not to dissmiss the above post (some of the gov'ts actions during the cold war are indefensable) but hanford is not (at least primarily,if at all) a power plant, it was designed to create the nuclear material necessary to make our nuclear arsenal. This does two things, it puts it out of the public eye, under cover of national security, and especially in the early days of the cold war/last days of WWII causes a strong impetus to get things done as quickly as possible (nuclear arms race/manhattan project), thus Hanford is probably a bad example of the nuclear power industry as a whole (which has its own set of problems, which the release of radioactive materials is not a major one, waste is more serious)
Actually doesn't /. under the DMCA only have 48 hours to respond (ie. take down "offending" material or be sued) to Microsoft. They can then have the material which was removed put back up at the request of the original poster, who under penalty of perjury says that Microsoft was wrong, and then Microsoft can go after the poster if it chooses to.
/. should do, only that I think if they wait longer than 48hrs their choices are severly limited.
I don't necessarilly think that this is what
Thus I'd like to hear what their lawyers said, and what they are planning (ie are they not going to act on the request in 48hrs (btw has this already passed?))
But of course it completely up to the editors to choose what to tell us, this is just what I'd like to hear.
I have another question, if Microsoft submitted this under penalties of perjury are they not in fact now guilty of this, ie haven't they perjured themselves.
I think that this "under penalty of perjury" garbage isn't taken seriously enough, maybe if the Microsoft lawyer was sent to prison for a couple of years for a false claim we'd see less of this kind of stupidity. (Or at least they would be much more careful about it.)
And if you want to still use Javascript at certain sites but not promiscuously ;) get IE power toys (tools) at the microsoft web site and set up the internet zone as the other people have said and set the trusted zone to allow javascript (since some sites won't work at all without javascript).
The power tools allow you to switch a site into the trusted zone just by clicking
Tools>Add to Trusted zone
and you can delete the site from your trusted list in the usual manner (Tools>InternetOptions...>security>trusted sites remove)
This makes it easier to allow cookies at Slashdot and not at Joe Website who hates all people and will screw them over any chance he gets.
Isn't it also a prized art in embedded systems programming where the hardware limitations force programmers to "eke every bit of performance" out of every clock cycle/memory usage?
The ...'s in the header leave out some important information (though the link supplies it)
that the article reads fully :
`(2) PROHIBITION- It shall be unlawful for any person--
`(A) to teach or demonstrate the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime; or
`(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime.
The distribution of the information rquires intent or the knowledge of intent of the person to whom you're giving the information. This is still chilling but it isn't quite as bad as the heading to the article suggests.
I feel that we should try to curtail drug use and manufacture, but when did it become a battle to win at any cost, including free speech.
I would suggest if you live in a state represented by the authors of the bill:
Mr. CANNON, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. ROGAN, Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. PICKERING, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. CANADY of Florida, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. GALLEGLY, and Mr. SALMON
You talk to them and ask if fighting drug manufacture and use is a sufficient reson to risk first amendment rights.
Actually all their killer testing equipment, and that cool stethoscope was spun off as Agilent now HP only does computing/peripherals/storage. (Note the hyperlink goes to Agilent not HP)