0. Prevention. Don't get spyware in the first place. Do the first item on the following list that you can: (in order of decreasing safety) Install Linux, Use Firefox, Use Anti-spyware innoculation/antiviruses, Use Safe Browsing Procedures. 1. Know your enemy. If you can identify what it is, then you can handle it. 2. Google for it. You aren't likely to be the first to have a problem. 3. Use a tool. Common spyware tend to have specialised uninstallers/removers available. 4. Use manual removal instructions, if all else fails. Reboot to safe mode for these. 5. If that doesn't work, format your hard drive, and go to step 0.
Of course, there's a privacy, breach of trust yadda yadda issue. But it's not like the thief can actually do anything with that data, right? There's no one he can sell it to, or something... right?
I expect the disks to just turn up in a dumpster somewhere, sometime soon.
It's extremely disappointing, of course, but a google boycott is never going to force political change in China. Putting that aside, providing a limited service that at least tells users they are seening censorship isn't really worse than no service at all.
For those who applaud the end of dark matter, this sort of law-modification theory should really be much more worrying. Dark matter at least has a plausible explanation, is predicted by various theories, makes predictions, and is somewhat intuitive. (come on, how likely is it that all the massive particles in the universe just happen to interact electromagnetically as well? We know from measurements that some, at least, do not - e.g. neutrinos.)
Altering the laws of physics so that they do not behave consistently (specifically, they just happen to do something different when far away from our local experiments) and giving no explanation why this should be so except to fit the previous data is really a terrible way to do things. And if new observations topple your carefully constructed modifications? What are you going to do - change your maths again?
The analogy is seeing a red ball, and declaring not that there is a red ball, but that there is a subtle effect with optics that creates circular red blobs in your vision from time to time.
I think that here, by mob, he means the players. For how long, after the gate is opened, will the server continue to be innundated with players coming back again and again whenever it gets back up.
There seriously need to be some automated way of preventing these. E.g. some program to flag up a warning if submissions repeat the same links, link to pages that contain the same links or contain the same words. Or something.
The thing is, you too can witness the miracles of dark matter with a good enough telescope. The whole point of dark matter is that while we cannot observe them directly by radiation emmissions etc, their actions via gravity can in fact be observed and measured. In a way, we really measure everything by their actions in any case. No faith required, which is nice for those of us with an allergy in that respect.
If by 'concluded', you mean 'two minor figures raised the vague suggestion that various unidentified and pretty implausible factors may somehow conspire to explain dark matter, in a study whose serious flaws meant most in the physics and astronomy community ignored them', then yes. We 'concluded' dark matter doesn't need to exist.
Let's turn first to the attempt by Cooperstock and Tieu to do away with dark matter. To be honest, there are a bunch of problems with this paper. For example, equations (1) and (2) seem mutually inconsistent -- they have chosen one coordinate system in which to express the spacetime metric, and another in which to express the spacetime velocity of the particles in the galaxy. Ordinarilly, you have to pick one coordinate system and stick to it. More importantly, Korzynski has analyzed their solution carefully and noticed that they have secretly included not only the mass of the stars, but a completely imaginary thin sheet of infinite density in the galactic plane. So the fact that the rotation curves don't decay as they should is really no surprise.
But the real reason why most astronomers and physicsts didn't take the paper seriously is that it violates everything we know about perturbation theory. In the galaxy, there are two parameters that are very small -- the gravitational potential is about 10-6, and the velocity of the stars (compared to the speed of light) is about 10-3. So it would be surprising indeed if perturbation theory weren't doing a really good job in this situation, even just including the first-order contribution. The real reason why nobody paid much attention to Cooperstock and Tieu is that they didn't even seem to recognize that this was a problem, much less offer some proposed explanation as to why perturbation theory was breaking down. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and we would need to be given a compelling reason to think that our perturbative intuition was failing before anyone would put a lot of effort into analyzing this paper.
No theory is provably correct. All you can do is fail to disprove them. All you can ever say is that a theory explains the observable results as we can measure them, and that we have been unable to make any observations that run contrary to the theory.
To affirm this principle, BTW, is why the Intelligent Design crazies have to be defeated.
I judge websites instantly and automatically for the 'OMG What's this 'Firefox' thing you are using, which version of IE is it?' that appear from time to time.
Sure. Before SVG, WMFs and EMFs were the only 'standard' vector image formats. Often, if you were working with AutoCAD etc, you would export to WMF or EMF to ensure that someone on the receiving end can see stuff and rescale correctly.
Worse is that implanting this thing doesn't even need ownership of a site. If a site allows tags, an anonymous commenter, forum poster or anything can drop an infected file on it, and screw over every IE user that visits. I don't know if it is possible, but imagine if someone adds an infected file to the Main Page of Wikipedia...
Slashdot Mirror
0. Prevention. Don't get spyware in the first place. Do the first item on the following list that you can: (in order of decreasing safety) Install Linux, Use Firefox, Use Anti-spyware innoculation/antiviruses, Use Safe Browsing Procedures.
1. Know your enemy. If you can identify what it is, then you can handle it.
2. Google for it. You aren't likely to be the first to have a problem.
3. Use a tool. Common spyware tend to have specialised uninstallers/removers available.
4. Use manual removal instructions, if all else fails. Reboot to safe mode for these.
5. If that doesn't work, format your hard drive, and go to step 0.
Of course, there's a privacy, breach of trust yadda yadda issue. But it's not like the thief can actually do anything with that data, right? There's no one he can sell it to, or something... right?
I expect the disks to just turn up in a dumpster somewhere, sometime soon.
Hey, what isn't alcohol an answer for?
Sure, here's a list of what the president absolutely cannot do:
1. Endorse gay marriage
2. Support evolution
3. Take their guns
When asked when the war would started, Gonzales replied "September 11th, 2001". When asked when it would end, he said "Never".
But Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia...
I'm somewhat sympathetic with Brin's position.
It's extremely disappointing, of course, but a google boycott is never going to force political change in China. Putting that aside, providing a limited service that at least tells users they are seening censorship isn't really worse than no service at all.
For those who applaud the end of dark matter, this sort of law-modification theory should really be much more worrying. Dark matter at least has a plausible explanation, is predicted by various theories, makes predictions, and is somewhat intuitive. (come on, how likely is it that all the massive particles in the universe just happen to interact electromagnetically as well? We know from measurements that some, at least, do not - e.g. neutrinos.)
Altering the laws of physics so that they do not behave consistently (specifically, they just happen to do something different when far away from our local experiments) and giving no explanation why this should be so except to fit the previous data is really a terrible way to do things. And if new observations topple your carefully constructed modifications? What are you going to do - change your maths again?
The analogy is seeing a red ball, and declaring not that there is a red ball, but that there is a subtle effect with optics that creates circular red blobs in your vision from time to time.
I think that here, by mob, he means the players. For how long, after the gate is opened, will the server continue to be innundated with players coming back again and again whenever it gets back up.
Sooo... Welcome to slashdot.
There seriously need to be some automated way of preventing these. E.g. some program to flag up a warning if submissions repeat the same links, link to pages that contain the same links or contain the same words. Or something.
There's an easier way, you know. Click the language link to switch to the English version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron_(hacker)
Thank you for pointing out the GUN that RMS is holding to your FACE.
I don't know who the Prime Minister is, but I do know he killed Kennedy.
Ok, if you hit caps lock, or even tilde when you meant to press the left mouse button... I don't think this keyboard will solve your problem.
The thing is, you too can witness the miracles of dark matter with a good enough telescope. The whole point of dark matter is that while we cannot observe them directly by radiation emmissions etc, their actions via gravity can in fact be observed and measured. In a way, we really measure everything by their actions in any case. No faith required, which is nice for those of us with an allergy in that respect.
If only we can mod comments down for stupidness.
If by 'concluded', you mean 'two minor figures raised the vague suggestion that various unidentified and pretty implausible factors may somehow conspire to explain dark matter, in a study whose serious flaws meant most in the physics and astronomy community ignored them', then yes. We 'concluded' dark matter doesn't need to exist.
t he-clutches-of-the-dark-sector/
http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/10/17/escape-from-
Quoted from the article there....
Let's turn first to the attempt by Cooperstock and Tieu to do away with dark matter. To be honest, there are a bunch of problems with this paper. For example, equations (1) and (2) seem mutually inconsistent -- they have chosen one coordinate system in which to express the spacetime metric, and another in which to express the spacetime velocity of the particles in the galaxy. Ordinarilly, you have to pick one coordinate system and stick to it. More importantly, Korzynski has analyzed their solution carefully and noticed that they have secretly included not only the mass of the stars, but a completely imaginary thin sheet of infinite density in the galactic plane. So the fact that the rotation curves don't decay as they should is really no surprise.
But the real reason why most astronomers and physicsts didn't take the paper seriously is that it violates everything we know about perturbation theory. In the galaxy, there are two parameters that are very small -- the gravitational potential is about 10-6, and the velocity of the stars (compared to the speed of light) is about 10-3. So it would be surprising indeed if perturbation theory weren't doing a really good job in this situation, even just including the first-order contribution. The real reason why nobody paid much attention to Cooperstock and Tieu is that they didn't even seem to recognize that this was a problem, much less offer some proposed explanation as to why perturbation theory was breaking down. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and we would need to be given a compelling reason to think that our perturbative intuition was failing before anyone would put a lot of effort into analyzing this paper.
No theory is provably correct. All you can do is fail to disprove them. All you can ever say is that a theory explains the observable results as we can measure them, and that we have been unable to make any observations that run contrary to the theory.
To affirm this principle, BTW, is why the Intelligent Design crazies have to be defeated.
It seems to be getting stronger.
k -energy/
An analysis: http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/01/11/evolving-dar
I judge websites instantly and automatically for the 'OMG What's this 'Firefox' thing you are using, which version of IE is it?' that appear from time to time.
Erm... does this device actually do anything useful that e.g. an endoscope doesn't?
Sure. Before SVG, WMFs and EMFs were the only 'standard' vector image formats. Often, if you were working with AutoCAD etc, you would export to WMF or EMF to ensure that someone on the receiving end can see stuff and rescale correctly.
There's even a Wikipedia article:
n erability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Metafile_vul
But it was tested. And there is a a mention of the MD5 signature on this page:
http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=999
Jesus freaking Christ...
Worse is that implanting this thing doesn't even need ownership of a site. If a site allows tags, an anonymous commenter, forum poster or anything can drop an infected file on it, and screw over every IE user that visits. I don't know if it is possible, but imagine if someone adds an infected file to the Main Page of Wikipedia...