Actually, as Enron displays, corruption DOESN'T flourish in private industry. I can't believe you missed the irony in your own statement. The CIA has been a disaster far longer than it took Enron to collapse. The private sector is not perfect, but it's reliance on VOLUNTARY financial support (at least to the extent the government keeps the hell out) means that it's connected with reality in a way the government never can be. In the long run, the private sector is self-correcting. Pointing out the (former) existence of Enron actually proves that point. Enron was an example of that mechanism in action. The world will never be perfect; all we can hopefor is a system where the right underlying forces are in place.
People seem to expect a world in which nothing bad ever happens, and when something does, rush to form government solutions that are worse than the problem. The best we can hope for is a world where bad stuff dies as quickly as possible. More government is almost never the right answer. (I'm not saying that's what you were suggesting, so don't take any of this personally.)
What a poor estimation of Apple you must have to not expect them to be capable of making their OS to be as secure as every other unix implementation out there. People run multi-user systems on linux all the time, for example, without worrying about users escalating privs. If I tried the same challenge on a Solaris box, do you think somebody would have been able to hack it in 30 minutes?
By handing out shell accounts, he might as well have been handing out the root password to his system.
Bull. By handing out shell accounts, he should NOT have been handing out the root password. That's the whole bloody point of restricted shell accounts. No matter how the fanbois spin this, this just lends further support to the notion that Mac OS X is not secure so much as just not worth the time to hackers.
By the way, I'm writing this from a Mac. Just because you prefer a system doesn't mean you have to stake your self-esteem on it and defend every suggestion that it's not perfect like somebody called your mother a whore.
Anyway, as to your assertion that Mac OS X isn't designed for multi-user, remote use: do you really think OS X server has the hole, whatever it is, patched? And Apple sure makes a big deal out of the multi-user capabilities of Mac OS X for a feature that we're not supposed to use.
The left used to view taxes as a drain on the working man? Rich guys used to use their money to buy libraries instead of stupid hot air balloons? Maybe there is something to the term "good old days" after all. If you tell me they didn't have Microsoft Windows back then, I'm going to cry.
Agreed. In fact, one could argue that only the dumbest academics have the time or inclination to run a university. That's certainly the case with our last president, Charles Vest, who spent most our endowment on his ego by building ugly modern buildings. Yup, we've got a $400 million computer science building that looks like a parking garage on the inside.
foul, i call. the guy made a good point. he was positing a mechanism. he doesn't have to prove it exists, since he was simply addressing the OP's unwarranted certainty that nonionizing radiation couldn't possible do anything bad to you.
anyway, to directly address your objection: your body is full of carcinogens. especially, for example, after drinking as much as you clearly do before posting. fortunately your body either metabolizes or eliminates them posthaste. so, it's fair to reason that something interferes with your chemical functioning in any way might potentially interfere with your body's ability to get rid of carcinogens.
planck's constant is small? i didn't know that. some people think it's one. i'm not sure what were meant to expect from a constant that relates frequency to energy.
anyway, i agree with you in the sense that the frequency of WiFi implies a very small photon energy relative to typical chemical bonding energies. but that assumes the only things that hurt you are chemical bonds being broken. RF radiation can certainly generate very small currents in your body which could theoretically disrupt your nervous system. i think that's what people are worried about, especially with cell phones which are right next to your nugget and therefor put your brain in the near-field of the antenna.
oh, come on. he's worried about high frequency EM waves. there's plenty of reasons to shoot down the guy without resorting to straw men.
i'm not saying the guy is right, but equating RF radiation to a static magnetic field is highly unfair. the frequency makes all the difference, as you well know since i imagine you don't object when the dentist puts lead over your nards during an x-ray.
Insightful? More like bigoted and stupid. Do you really want to be dismissing entire regions based solely on summary statistics? You realize that from a foreign perspective, you and the rural south are part of the same aggregate?
Grassroots nationwide network made up of people connecting to nearby people via modem. Granted it took a day or two for mail to make it across the country, but it was pretty cool given that it was truly decentralized and done entirely by hobbyists.
Anyway, I think it's a moot point. Who cares about the topology of the internet when you can just encrypt everything? Backbones are great. Best thing is to use the fastest and most robust network topology, and let security be handled at the application level.
Maybe. But, alas, the Enquirer readership is largely inaccessible from the internet, and I don't think/. would work well in tabloid form due to the constant updating of mods and whatnot.
I've heard of the Bohr model, but never heard of it used in a modern scientific explanation of anything. Probably because it's wrong. If this guy is using the Bohr model, that's just one more nail in the coffin of his credibility. The Bohr model doesn't know anything about spin coherence, and neither does this Thomson guy.
Anyhow, it's nice to know that if I fail in life I can always count on/. to give me my due 15 minutes of fame. If nothing else, I'll just announce the creation of a antigravity boot based on breakthrough anti-graviton excitation by a UV mode-locked laser pulse wake field and CowbowNeal will eat it up.
Do the editors here have ANY self-respect left? This guy is so clearly a kook and charlatan that I can't believe there is anybody who fell for his psuedo-scientific babble. There's absolutely nothing credible about the website, and none of the "science" makes much sense. You can't get electron spins to stay in a pure state in a molecule. If you could, quantum computing wouldn't be so hard. There's really no point in addressing why it won't work, since it doesn't make any sense, anyway. It's just a bunch of gibberish, talk about "Bohr Atomic Postulate" (whatever that is) and how optically excited electrons will stay in place until readout by another light (not true), blah blah blah. The guy is fucking insane.
This place is starting to have the editorial standards of the National Enquirer...
Magnetic dipoles have to be macroscopic? Doesn't an electron have an intrinsic magnetic moment? Certainly an electron in an atomic orbital creates one. I don't think size is the problem here, at least not in theory.
Why should that be illegal? Neither Ford nor Exxon are monopolies. Why shouldn't they be allowed to tie-in their businesses? It would be stupid, and it would hurt them, but it isn't, and shouldn't be illegal. Damn, why do I always get sucked into this statist crap?
Congrats on +5 for missing the ENTIRE point of the article. At least read the previous comments before posting. The whole point of the antigravity "field" preceding the object is that it can push such objects out of the way. Otherwise, you're right, near light speed travel is pretty impossible because of the fact that you'll be hitting all sorts of stuff (not just elementary particles) at relativistic speeds.
Yeah, well the people on the ship are the ones we were talking about, right? So their life support would only have to last the duration measured from the perspective of the ship. The OP was entirely right.
I disagree. Picking a market to design towards is not a mistake, especially when it's one as big as the American car market. Trying to make a car that appeals to the entire world might be. The problem is that not even Americans like American cars. You are right that the quality is terrible.
While management is certainly not without culpability here, I think one of the biggest reasons for the low quality is labor, both directly and in the sense that corners constantly need to be cut in order to be price competitive despite the HUGE overhead of American labor. We've got entire factories in America that are pretty much idle but where every factory worker had to be paid a full salary just because of union contracts making it impossible to layoff people. It's ridiculous, and it's no surprise that we can't make a car anybody wants to buy. You pay for a Ford and your money goes partly towards the car, and largely towards idle union workers and generous healthcare and pensions.
The same is true for BMW, which has to deal with the German labor market, but they make premium cars and yuppies don't care they're getting ripped off. But American cars manufacturers don't have the luxury of having a core market of people with six figure incomes. Given that reality, I think it's fair to say that their horrendous labor costs are a significant reason for their demise.
As bad as the original Ford was in terms of labor, I can't help but notice that back then our car industry was the envy of the world. Now that we've got unionized auto workers making more than a college professor and working fewer hours than a banker, our auto industry is in shambles. I'm not saying the old extreme was good, but I think the pendulum has swung a bit far in terms of employee's sense of entitlement.
Slashdot Mirror
People seem to expect a world in which nothing bad ever happens, and when something does, rush to form government solutions that are worse than the problem. The best we can hope for is a world where bad stuff dies as quickly as possible. More government is almost never the right answer. (I'm not saying that's what you were suggesting, so don't take any of this personally.)
Don't you have better things to do than read slashdot, Mr. Rumsfeld?
Jeez. I didn't even notice that. If you're right, that guy is fricking brilliant.
What a poor estimation of Apple you must have to not expect them to be capable of making their OS to be as secure as every other unix implementation out there. People run multi-user systems on linux all the time, for example, without worrying about users escalating privs. If I tried the same challenge on a Solaris box, do you think somebody would have been able to hack it in 30 minutes?
Bull. By handing out shell accounts, he should NOT have been handing out the root password. That's the whole bloody point of restricted shell accounts. No matter how the fanbois spin this, this just lends further support to the notion that Mac OS X is not secure so much as just not worth the time to hackers.
By the way, I'm writing this from a Mac. Just because you prefer a system doesn't mean you have to stake your self-esteem on it and defend every suggestion that it's not perfect like somebody called your mother a whore.
Anyway, as to your assertion that Mac OS X isn't designed for multi-user, remote use: do you really think OS X server has the hole, whatever it is, patched? And Apple sure makes a big deal out of the multi-user capabilities of Mac OS X for a feature that we're not supposed to use.
How did it work? Did it actually "screw" in or did you just end up stripping it?
The left used to view taxes as a drain on the working man? Rich guys used to use their money to buy libraries instead of stupid hot air balloons? Maybe there is something to the term "good old days" after all. If you tell me they didn't have Microsoft Windows back then, I'm going to cry.
Agreed. In fact, one could argue that only the dumbest academics have the time or inclination to run a university. That's certainly the case with our last president, Charles Vest, who spent most our endowment on his ego by building ugly modern buildings. Yup, we've got a $400 million computer science building that looks like a parking garage on the inside.
anyway, to directly address your objection: your body is full of carcinogens. especially, for example, after drinking as much as you clearly do before posting. fortunately your body either metabolizes or eliminates them posthaste. so, it's fair to reason that something interferes with your chemical functioning in any way might potentially interfere with your body's ability to get rid of carcinogens.
anyway, i agree with you in the sense that the frequency of WiFi implies a very small photon energy relative to typical chemical bonding energies. but that assumes the only things that hurt you are chemical bonds being broken. RF radiation can certainly generate very small currents in your body which could theoretically disrupt your nervous system. i think that's what people are worried about, especially with cell phones which are right next to your nugget and therefor put your brain in the near-field of the antenna.
i'm not saying the guy is right, but equating RF radiation to a static magnetic field is highly unfair. the frequency makes all the difference, as you well know since i imagine you don't object when the dentist puts lead over your nards during an x-ray.
Insightful? More like bigoted and stupid. Do you really want to be dismissing entire regions based solely on summary statistics? You realize that from a foreign perspective, you and the rural south are part of the same aggregate?
Anyway, I think it's a moot point. Who cares about the topology of the internet when you can just encrypt everything? Backbones are great. Best thing is to use the fastest and most robust network topology, and let security be handled at the application level.
I must confess, I don't get it. Is ridiculous a commonly mispelled word in these parts?
I will grant you that! His obvious intelligence is why I think he's actually insane, rather than just deluded.
Maybe. But, alas, the Enquirer readership is largely inaccessible from the internet, and I don't think /. would work well in tabloid form due to the constant updating of mods and whatnot.
Anyhow, it's nice to know that if I fail in life I can always count on /. to give me my due 15 minutes of fame. If nothing else, I'll just announce the creation of a antigravity boot based on breakthrough anti-graviton excitation by a UV mode-locked laser pulse wake field and CowbowNeal will eat it up.
This place is starting to have the editorial standards of the National Enquirer...
Magnetic dipoles have to be macroscopic? Doesn't an electron have an intrinsic magnetic moment? Certainly an electron in an atomic orbital creates one. I don't think size is the problem here, at least not in theory.
Why should that be illegal? Neither Ford nor Exxon are monopolies. Why shouldn't they be allowed to tie-in their businesses? It would be stupid, and it would hurt them, but it isn't, and shouldn't be illegal. Damn, why do I always get sucked into this statist crap?
Congrats on +5 for missing the ENTIRE point of the article. At least read the previous comments before posting. The whole point of the antigravity "field" preceding the object is that it can push such objects out of the way. Otherwise, you're right, near light speed travel is pretty impossible because of the fact that you'll be hitting all sorts of stuff (not just elementary particles) at relativistic speeds.
Yeah, well the people on the ship are the ones we were talking about, right? So their life support would only have to last the duration measured from the perspective of the ship. The OP was entirely right.
Glad you brought that up. Toyota and Honda factories in America are some of the few that aren't unionized.
While management is certainly not without culpability here, I think one of the biggest reasons for the low quality is labor, both directly and in the sense that corners constantly need to be cut in order to be price competitive despite the HUGE overhead of American labor. We've got entire factories in America that are pretty much idle but where every factory worker had to be paid a full salary just because of union contracts making it impossible to layoff people. It's ridiculous, and it's no surprise that we can't make a car anybody wants to buy. You pay for a Ford and your money goes partly towards the car, and largely towards idle union workers and generous healthcare and pensions.
The same is true for BMW, which has to deal with the German labor market, but they make premium cars and yuppies don't care they're getting ripped off. But American cars manufacturers don't have the luxury of having a core market of people with six figure incomes. Given that reality, I think it's fair to say that their horrendous labor costs are a significant reason for their demise.
As bad as the original Ford was in terms of labor, I can't help but notice that back then our car industry was the envy of the world. Now that we've got unionized auto workers making more than a college professor and working fewer hours than a banker, our auto industry is in shambles. I'm not saying the old extreme was good, but I think the pendulum has swung a bit far in terms of employee's sense of entitlement.