To take energy away from the current would slow it down, thus sending us into a new ice age.
I think you just hit on the solution to global warming. Counteract it by triggering cooling down here in the oceans AND generating an alternative energy source at the same time. We can even sell more high-margin SUVs to fund it, since we can counteract greenhouse heating with oceanic cooling, and tax those sales in the process to fund any environmental program of choice.
More realistically, wind turbines don't stop the wind from blowing, so I doubt a few turbines down in the current will stop it, either.
According to physics of the black-and-white pre-apollo era I can fist-fight with space mobsters in my shiny rocket on the moon and my hat will never fall off my head no matter how often I get knocked down.
There is not a SINGLE technical detail about the bug in the article.
That's on purpose - they don't want their article to give hackers any real direction on how to exploit it. From TFA..."Rios and McFetters plan to release the results of their research after the vendor has had a chance to fix the problem".
Yes, this is news for nerds - I know I'll be avoiding the URI protocol cautiously, if at all. I am duly informed. (Of course a real nerd would have known this already, so I have to turn in my card, I guess.)
We having something very similar to that here in Ohio. Proficiency testing (standardized State-Level test) scores have to be at a certain level to graduate. These scores are also used in rating the schools.
In practice, teachers have ended up teaching to the test. You get an education at the common denominator, and miss out on a lot of other things that could be studied instead of state-test-prep.
That worked so well for Apple, didn't it? My schools had a lot more apple labs and a few pc's for teh "business" and typing classes. Apple practically gave stuff to the schools. Still, in spite of that schooled-in-familiarity, Micrsoft ended up dominating the market.
Many bloggers often comment on how cool an advertiser is. This is often a shallow attempt to get people to click on the ads. Nothing new here. And I never hear outrage of bloggers who do what I've mentioned.
This is basically the Ziff-Davis business model, just blogs instead of print, right?
I can't decide what is more amazing - that they found and identified this mummy after so many years...
or that the Discovery Channel already has a documentary on the find completed on the day the news is released.
(OK, no so amazed by either, the more I think of it)
Evidence 2: How Microsoft explained that they changed their mind back on virtualization of Basic/Home? "The company said virtualization presents inherent security risks". Oh... My... God... They aren't even TRYING. What kind of damn security risk are we talking about? That people will buy cheap Windows Basic and run it on Parallels on Mac, isn't that the one. Pathetic.
Yeah, that phrase struck me in the article, too. Given the ms track record, virtualization is not going to be the gaping hole / easy entrance.
<tinfoil = OnHead> Could it be virtual machines don't present enough juicy goodness about the user when the products phone home^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hactivate, and that is the *real* reason ms doesn't like them? </tinfoil>
I can understand the director's point - to get government officials to speak freely, they need assurance that their words won't be twisted into something that kills their funding/votes/public image/whatever.
I can understand the point of the article - public!=not public. The description of the meeting was confusing at best, misleading at worst.
Where the article lost credibility for me was the rant on location (more than once). Yes, it is in a federal building, payed for with taxpayer dollars. That does not imply that it is open to the public merely by its purpose. The pentagon is a federal building, payed for with taxpayer dollars. Does that imply anyone can waltz in there and listen in on any-old-meeting-they-please? (I concede the difference: the pentagon never advertises its meetings as "public")
I sense a little over-reaction here.
My classmates proved this in High School, inadvertently. Our Chemistry class was notoriously hard, and graded on a curve. For the practice final one guy answered 'C' for everything. Another answered randomly. They both finished fairly early, to the chagrin of the teacher, but did fairly well on the final curve. If I recall, "C" beat random. This test did not include the wrong-answer penalty like the SAT.
Duck Measurer: "I put a duck on one side of the scale, and use weights (lumps of known mass) on the other side to determine the mass of the duck."
Some Guy: "Umm, but you already know the mass of the weights, why are you bothering?"
I don't know if I like this idea or not.
More review = good
Quicker review = good
Big companies seeing ideas before the examiner < good?
Outside chance this backfires, kills the system, and software patents are deprecated... priceless.
Where's the disinterested yet knowledgeable third party?
The Big Companies can see the publicly available applications anyway, as mentioned above, so no harm there.
Gotta chew on this a while.
you know that it's better to spend 60b bucks to get it wrong than to spend 120b bucks to get it wrong.
No argument there. Unfortunately there is no way to calculate the amount of spending required to get it "right", so the 120B could be as "the same", "better", or "worse" than 60B. So, while I wish there was a magic spending number that brought perfect knowledge, there isn't. We're left with gathering a reasonable amount of data, analyzing as best as humanly possible (considering the "good enough" work ethic and policy constraints).
Personally, I'd rather see us spend $120B on intelligence and get it RIGHT than only spend $60B and get it WRONG and end up going to war based on that faulty intelligence at a price tag of $82B up-front and more annually!
Politics and loss of life aside, it's just better economics!
'how many beers are left in six pack if you drink two of them'.
Hmm... lemme see har...
Beers..six pack - yup, mm-hmm.
how many'r LEFT if'n I drink two ofum?
Ok, ummm... got a six pack right here.
Daamm, only 4 left in this'un.
I'd Better git me a new 6-pack so's I can drink 2 to
figger out this here Inner-Tube Highway thing.
This mess reflects the real problem with the patent system - it is an abused system, but for a "little fish" to defend himself against abuse by the "bigger fish" he has to perpetuate the further abuse of the system! Insanity!
Real-world example: I'm working with someone one a great idea that has the potential to be huge in a particular industry. Its implementation is Intenet-based. Now the guy who is driving the idea wants to get a patent to protect his idea, since there are many big players in the industry already close to implemeting the idea, but none quite-so-close as we could be, based on his variation on the process.
So here's my situation... I personally think business method patents and software patents are ridiculous. However, because the bigger players in the industry will happily see our idea, patent it out from under us, then sue us out of the opportunity our only defense is to prepare and file our own software/business method patents. This is WRECKING our innovation and oppotunity on the project because we are in a catch-22: We need the patent to protect us before we take the idea to VC. We need VC to get money to complete and launch the product. We need to get the product launched to hit the window of opportunity, so VC gets a solid investment. We need VC and/or revenue to complete the patent filing. The whole need for a defensive patent is slowing down the time to market, and sucking resources that could be going to deployment! How is the patent system helping innovation again???
I seriously feel like Wyld Stallions: We need a triumphant video to get Eddie VanHalen because we can't play/don't have decent instruments to make a triumphant video.
Ironically, the I'm-not-a-script image for this posting is "atrocity"
You can get a $7 computer TODAY - granted it won't be new-off-the-shelf for $7. But I'll bet with a little patience you could easily find a C-64, 286, or maybe even a 386 or 486 for well under $10. Heck, visit a house the day after a garage sale and you may be able to get a computer for free.
Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range
How is it un-natural just because we influenced it? Aren't we a part of nature? Matter (which includes the elements composing Carbon and Oxygen) cannot be created or destroyed, so our behavior is simply re-arranging pre-existing (or "natural") matter. That act is neither good nor bad, normal, nor abnormal, but has (arguably) measureable consequences.
Before you mod me a troll... My personal view is that we need to be good stewards of the Earth we are given, therefore if we are causing damage then we need to adjust our behavior. For example, we changed farming practices after learning the effects of soil erosion (geological and economic) - now it is a problem we know that we have influence over and encourage others to follow sound practices. I am beginning to view atmospheric conservation the same way.
With farming, nothing changed until the damaging practices made a key resource (tillable soil) scarce. I don't think we can expect any change in human/industrial behavior until climate change gets to the point of causing tangible economic impact. What is the atmospheric equivalent of having all your topsoil blow away?
We argue over whether people BELIEVE it is happening - the real problem is whether people CARE, regardless of who is right. Science and research can educate forever, but until a problem affects people's wallet or the food on their plate, they won't care and they won't change.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you just hit on the solution to global warming. Counteract it by triggering cooling down here in the oceans AND generating an alternative energy source at the same time. We can even sell more high-margin SUVs to fund it, since we can counteract greenhouse heating with oceanic cooling, and tax those sales in the process to fund any environmental program of choice.
More realistically, wind turbines don't stop the wind from blowing, so I doubt a few turbines down in the current will stop it, either.
... 3d holographic battle chess is released. Then I'll take notice. I'll still let the Wookie win.
According to physics of the black-and-white pre-apollo era I can fist-fight with space mobsters in my shiny rocket on the moon and my hat will never fall off my head no matter how often I get knocked down.
Yes, this is news for nerds - I know I'll be avoiding the URI protocol cautiously, if at all. I am duly informed. (Of course a real nerd would have known this already, so I have to turn in my card, I guess.)
Nothing to gripe about here - move along.
We having something very similar to that here in Ohio. Proficiency testing (standardized State-Level test) scores have to be at a certain level to graduate. These scores are also used in rating the schools.
In practice, teachers have ended up teaching to the test. You get an education at the common denominator, and miss out on a lot of other things that could be studied instead of state-test-prep.
That worked so well for Apple, didn't it? My schools had a lot more apple labs and a few pc's for teh "business" and typing classes. Apple practically gave stuff to the schools. Still, in spite of that schooled-in-familiarity, Micrsoft ended up dominating the market.
page 3 of the article. Still operational and renamed to Missile Defense Agency.
I can't decide what is more amazing - that they found and identified this mummy after so many years... or that the Discovery Channel already has a documentary on the find completed on the day the news is released. (OK, no so amazed by either, the more I think of it)
<tinfoil = OnHead> Could it be virtual machines don't present enough juicy goodness about the user when the products phone home^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hactivate, and that is the *real* reason ms doesn't like them? </tinfoil>
I can understand the director's point - to get government officials to speak freely, they need assurance that their words won't be twisted into something that kills their funding/votes/public image/whatever.
I can understand the point of the article - public!=not public. The description of the meeting was confusing at best, misleading at worst.
Where the article lost credibility for me was the rant on location (more than once). Yes, it is in a federal building, payed for with taxpayer dollars. That does not imply that it is open to the public merely by its purpose. The pentagon is a federal building, payed for with taxpayer dollars. Does that imply anyone can waltz in there and listen in on any-old-meeting-they-please? (I concede the difference: the pentagon never advertises its meetings as "public")
I sense a little over-reaction here.
My classmates proved this in High School, inadvertently. Our Chemistry class was notoriously hard, and graded on a curve. For the practice final one guy answered 'C' for everything. Another answered randomly. They both finished fairly early, to the chagrin of the teacher, but did fairly well on the final curve. If I recall, "C" beat random. This test did not include the wrong-answer penalty like the SAT.
1 Corinthians 1:18-29 comes to mind.
s/Netscape/Google/g
s/1997/2007/g
s/Web Browser/Desktop Search/g
I don't know if I like this idea or not.
More review = good
Quicker review = good
Big companies seeing ideas before the examiner < good?
Outside chance this backfires, kills the system, and software patents are deprecated... priceless.
Where's the disinterested yet knowledgeable third party?
The Big Companies can see the publicly available applications anyway, as mentioned above, so no harm there.
Gotta chew on this a while.
Only $60B ???!!!
Personally, I'd rather see us spend $120B on intelligence and get it RIGHT than only spend $60B and get it WRONG and end up going to war based on that faulty intelligence at a price tag of $82B up-front and more annually!
Politics and loss of life aside, it's just better economics!
Replace the mangled-text-and-response captcha with a skill test, like punch-the-monkey. Maybe I could win an iPod while I'm at it.
Unrelated question....how do you validate the captcha if you are browsing with lynx?
Mod self -1,weird-mood-on-a-monday
This mess reflects the real problem with the patent system - it is an abused system, but for a "little fish" to defend himself against abuse by the "bigger fish" he has to perpetuate the further abuse of the system! Insanity!
Real-world example: I'm working with someone one a great idea that has the potential to be huge in a particular industry. Its implementation is Intenet-based. Now the guy who is driving the idea wants to get a patent to protect his idea, since there are many big players in the industry already close to implemeting the idea, but none quite-so-close as we could be, based on his variation on the process.
So here's my situation... I personally think business method patents and software patents are ridiculous. However, because the bigger players in the industry will happily see our idea, patent it out from under us, then sue us out of the opportunity our only defense is to prepare and file our own software/business method patents. This is WRECKING our innovation and oppotunity on the project because we are in a catch-22: We need the patent to protect us before we take the idea to VC. We need VC to get money to complete and launch the product. We need to get the product launched to hit the window of opportunity, so VC gets a solid investment. We need VC and/or revenue to complete the patent filing. The whole need for a defensive patent is slowing down the time to market, and sucking resources that could be going to deployment! How is the patent system helping innovation again???
I seriously feel like Wyld Stallions: We need a triumphant video to get Eddie VanHalen because we can't play/don't have decent instruments to make a triumphant video.
Ironically, the I'm-not-a-script image for this posting is "atrocity"
You can get a $7 computer TODAY - granted it won't be new-off-the-shelf for $7. But I'll bet with a little patience you could easily find a C-64, 286, or maybe even a 386 or 486 for well under $10. Heck, visit a house the day after a garage sale and you may be able to get a computer for free.
I hereby rescind my geek card.
Chewbacca and the Wookies live on Kashyyyk. The Ewoks live on a moon of Endor, not Endor itself.
Sorry, we'll have to rescind that +5 insightful, now.
Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range
How is it un-natural just because we influenced it? Aren't we a part of nature? Matter (which includes the elements composing Carbon and Oxygen) cannot be created or destroyed, so our behavior is simply re-arranging pre-existing (or "natural") matter. That act is neither good nor bad, normal, nor abnormal, but has (arguably) measureable consequences.
Before you mod me a troll... My personal view is that we need to be good stewards of the Earth we are given, therefore if we are causing damage then we need to adjust our behavior. For example, we changed farming practices after learning the effects of soil erosion (geological and economic) - now it is a problem we know that we have influence over and encourage others to follow sound practices. I am beginning to view atmospheric conservation the same way.
With farming, nothing changed until the damaging practices made a key resource (tillable soil) scarce. I don't think we can expect any change in human/industrial behavior until climate change gets to the point of causing tangible economic impact. What is the atmospheric equivalent of having all your topsoil blow away?
We argue over whether people BELIEVE it is happening - the real problem is whether people CARE, regardless of who is right. Science and research can educate forever, but until a problem affects people's wallet or the food on their plate, they won't care and they won't change.