Now every time I go past an AP called DLINK (and there are a lot of them) ubuntu tries to connect.
This is the big problem with unsecured access points. Linux is probably pretty safe but if you have an unsecured access point called 'DLINK' at home and you run Windows with the network set to 'home' or 'work' then it is going to connect to any unsecured access point called 'DLINK' (how would it tell the difference?) and you could be pwned pretty readily either by the owner of the access point or by someone else who just happens to be connected too.
You agreed to WGA though. They tell you from the outset that their product will cause you pain if it determines (correctly or not) that it has been obtained illegally. Sneaking a backdoor into a product is different.
Well... if you change that to a car analogy - if you put a device in your car that turns off the engine and locks the steering once the car reaches 40mph if theft is detected then anyone foolish enough to steal it gets what they deserve. A nice idea in theory but you'd be going to jail if it happened, or worse if it resulted in an accident that melted down a bus load of nuns.
Back to the original case, I thought it was BSD licensed so they wouldn't be stealing it anyway. They just wanted a license that better suited their needs.
Me too, but a rural city and probably far enough away that not too many people would notice. Unfortunately there is a very real risk of things catching fire at the moment which rather limits the mischief you can get up to without risking a whole lot of deaths.
I do feel sorry for kids today. Kids will be kids.
It's a tricky one. Lots of people say "we did such and such when we were kids and we survived", but that's a pretty steep selection bias. Many many kids have been killed by "combining all sorts of nasty chemicals together" etc, but they aren't around to tell you about it.
We're going to have to accept that if you are going to give kids the freedom to reach their full potential, some of them are going to be killed or seriously injured along the way. The problem for me is every time a kid blows themselves up or falls under a plough because they were riding on the back of a tractor it makes the news, thus increasing my anxiety as a parent and making me realise just how easy my kids can come to harm... it's scary.
The other thing is that if the powers that be try and make the world safer for kids, they are going to have to decide what an acceptable number of yearly deaths is (statistically of course) and set the rules appropriately. And what politician is going to say anything other than that zero is the only acceptable number?
What's the student supposed to get counseling for?
According to TFA, "The student violated school policies". I can't think what possible school policy it could be unless the device was deliberately designed to look like a bomb, but that would be against the law anyway. Or maybe it was supposed to be a motion sensitive camera to put in the girls changing rooms? He is 11 after all:)
I suspect that the vice-principal went to press the "independent thought alarm" but pressed the security button instead by mistake.
When I was about 15 (20 years ago), we used to make little (~1m x 1m x 1m) hot air balloons out of tissue paper and use methylated spirits as the fuel. On one occasion our bottle of fuel was leaking - the lid had cracked or something and didn't fit tightly - so we chucked a cloth under the lid to stop it spilling. We were just about to head out the door when my dad pointed out that the fuel bottle (which I was carrying in my hand) looked uncannily like a molotov cocktail, and that we might want to reconsider how we carried it. Back then, had someone noticed, we might have been confronted by a policeman wanting to make sure we weren't up to too much mischief... I wouldn't like to think about what would have happened if we tried the same sort of thing today.
It must suck a bit to be a kid in these times. There's no way I'm going to take my kids on an airplane... not because I fear for their safety, but because I just know that one of them will think it hilarious to make a joke about a bomb, and nobody else is going to find it funny.
How often does NASA use a rocket engine stage before it gets discarded?
I would have thought that replacing something highly complex (like a rocket engine) with something a bit less complex (like a big gun) is exactly the sort of step you seem to be proposing. If you could get stuff into orbit without a rocket, then the rockets required to move it around once it's up there are much cheaper and simpler than anything we use now to get off the surface.
Getting off the planet is really really hard, so anything that makes that simpler is a good thing, even if they don't reach the end game in terms of rocket technology in one step.
Make it long enough and it CAN launch people. (You'll need good streamlining to avoid nasty deceleration when it leaves the muzzle, though.)
A problem with making it longer is the amount of air that it has to move out of the way as the projectile traverses the length of the barrel... and if the air pressure goes up as you go down (i can't see how it wouldn't) it gets denser too.
As for recoil, the whole idea with the long barrel is that you don't have such a sharp initial jolt, so it shouldn't be such a problem.
Maybe we just need to remove all the shielding off our microwave ovens and run them on full. That should pollute the immediate vicinity with enough power to charge the devices.
Since when did taking what someone said on the internet, especially a vague broad sweeping statement (eg what you said) and asking for a reference to back it up become ignorance?
I'd be reluctant to believe the word of someone who provides no evidence to back up their 'facts', and then dismisses anyone who asks for a reference as ignorant. Reminds me of arguments I've had with religious nuts.
snopes.com has a bunch of articles on the 'bits of people in food' subject... but they don't exactly back up your opinions. On the face of it, I think you've been listening to one too many urban legends.
I certainly suffer from a feeling of being an expert in all fields. Deep down I guess I know I'm not, but I'd probably rather just muddle my way through it assuming I know everything there is to know. The trick is knowing when something is sufficiently out of your field that you need to defer to someone who is an expert in that field. Statistics is just one example. Certainly a little bit of knowledge in a lot of fields is a good thing, but when you have to choose between 4 years of study vs consulting someone who's already done 4 years of study, the choice should be obvious... (assuming you aren't going to spend the rest of your programming life doing heavily statistics related programming:)
For me the frustration is taking the word of an expert without understanding why and how they have arrived at that answer. I guess statistics is one field where the answer that 'feels right' is often not the answer that is right. The number of people who buy lottery tickets is a good example of that:)
There may or may not be a genetic predisposition to nut and/or peanut allergy, but there is certainly a large environmental factor. Have a look at the way the allergies are clustered geographically, often in the areas where the pollens from the allergen plants are blown.
Your proposal probably wouldn't really be weeding out those with a genetic predisposition to nut allergies, it would be selecting for a genetic predisposition to _not_ having a nut allergy, which is much rarer, and would take many generations to weed out.
Various people over the coarse of history have tried this sort of manual (as opposed to natural) selection - you're in interesting company (I think I barely dodged Godwin on that one:)
This sounds suspiciously like something that could be implemented via cross site scripting. You visit a link and happen to be logged into hotmail and it magically changes your autoreply for you. Like that thing that kept turning my google safe search off.
I wonder what the environmental impact will be of injecting hot air into the atmosphere at 2400 feet... given that the plume will probably rise a fair bit higher again due to it's momentum...
should have enough economic disincentives as to make them all but beyond the ability of anyone to procure
I prefer to think of it as balancing the books. If you actions are responsible for pumping x amount of pollution into the atmosphere then you should be responsible for cleaning it up. This cleaning up can happen in various ways, in the example of using electricity from coal fired power stations and only considering the CO2 pollution: . The electricity company plants some trees or otherwise sucks the pollution out of the air, and charges you an increased rate for doing so . The electricity company pays a third party to plant some trees, and on-charges you . You plant some trees . You pay a third party to plant some trees . The government puts a tarriff on the cost of the electricity and plants some trees
Obviously that's insanely simplified, but the idea is that the cost of the product includes the cost of cleaning up the pollution produced in the manufacturing of that product.
Are such tariff's against the various free trade agreements that are floating around these days?
Slashdot Mirror
a black lithium-ion battery strapped to the frame beneath the seat
whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
Now every time I go past an AP called DLINK (and there are a lot of them) ubuntu tries to connect.
This is the big problem with unsecured access points. Linux is probably pretty safe but if you have an unsecured access point called 'DLINK' at home and you run Windows with the network set to 'home' or 'work' then it is going to connect to any unsecured access point called 'DLINK' (how would it tell the difference?) and you could be pwned pretty readily either by the owner of the access point or by someone else who just happens to be connected too.
You agreed to WGA though. They tell you from the outset that their product will cause you pain if it determines (correctly or not) that it has been obtained illegally. Sneaking a backdoor into a product is different.
Well... if you change that to a car analogy - if you put a device in your car that turns off the engine and locks the steering once the car reaches 40mph if theft is detected then anyone foolish enough to steal it gets what they deserve. A nice idea in theory but you'd be going to jail if it happened, or worse if it resulted in an accident that melted down a bus load of nuns.
Back to the original case, I thought it was BSD licensed so they wouldn't be stealing it anyway. They just wanted a license that better suited their needs.
I live in an Australia city now
Me too, but a rural city and probably far enough away that not too many people would notice. Unfortunately there is a very real risk of things catching fire at the moment which rather limits the mischief you can get up to without risking a whole lot of deaths.
I do feel sorry for kids today. Kids will be kids.
It's a tricky one. Lots of people say "we did such and such when we were kids and we survived", but that's a pretty steep selection bias. Many many kids have been killed by "combining all sorts of nasty chemicals together" etc, but they aren't around to tell you about it.
We're going to have to accept that if you are going to give kids the freedom to reach their full potential, some of them are going to be killed or seriously injured along the way. The problem for me is every time a kid blows themselves up or falls under a plough because they were riding on the back of a tractor it makes the news, thus increasing my anxiety as a parent and making me realise just how easy my kids can come to harm... it's scary.
The other thing is that if the powers that be try and make the world safer for kids, they are going to have to decide what an acceptable number of yearly deaths is (statistically of course) and set the rules appropriately. And what politician is going to say anything other than that zero is the only acceptable number?
(4) Profit.
(5) Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect profit.
What's the student supposed to get counseling for?
According to TFA, "The student violated school policies". I can't think what possible school policy it could be unless the device was deliberately designed to look like a bomb, but that would be against the law anyway. Or maybe it was supposed to be a motion sensitive camera to put in the girls changing rooms? He is 11 after all :)
I suspect that the vice-principal went to press the "independent thought alarm" but pressed the security button instead by mistake.
When I was about 15 (20 years ago), we used to make little (~1m x 1m x 1m) hot air balloons out of tissue paper and use methylated spirits as the fuel. On one occasion our bottle of fuel was leaking - the lid had cracked or something and didn't fit tightly - so we chucked a cloth under the lid to stop it spilling. We were just about to head out the door when my dad pointed out that the fuel bottle (which I was carrying in my hand) looked uncannily like a molotov cocktail, and that we might want to reconsider how we carried it. Back then, had someone noticed, we might have been confronted by a policeman wanting to make sure we weren't up to too much mischief... I wouldn't like to think about what would have happened if we tried the same sort of thing today.
It must suck a bit to be a kid in these times. There's no way I'm going to take my kids on an airplane... not because I fear for their safety, but because I just know that one of them will think it hilarious to make a joke about a bomb, and nobody else is going to find it funny.
Wear a tinfoil hat of course. It's not like this EMP can punch holes through metal or anything.
How often does NASA use a rocket engine stage before it gets discarded?
I would have thought that replacing something highly complex (like a rocket engine) with something a bit less complex (like a big gun) is exactly the sort of step you seem to be proposing. If you could get stuff into orbit without a rocket, then the rockets required to move it around once it's up there are much cheaper and simpler than anything we use now to get off the surface.
Getting off the planet is really really hard, so anything that makes that simpler is a good thing, even if they don't reach the end game in terms of rocket technology in one step.
Make it long enough and it CAN launch people. (You'll need good streamlining to avoid nasty deceleration when it leaves the muzzle, though.)
A problem with making it longer is the amount of air that it has to move out of the way as the projectile traverses the length of the barrel... and if the air pressure goes up as you go down (i can't see how it wouldn't) it gets denser too.
As for recoil, the whole idea with the long barrel is that you don't have such a sharp initial jolt, so it shouldn't be such a problem.
Not much of a sodding warning. Can you stock up & get to high ground/underground in two days?
At least you can't say you weren't warned!
Besides, how much warning do you need to put your head between your legs and kiss your bum goodbye?
Maybe we just need to remove all the shielding off our microwave ovens and run them on full. That should pollute the immediate vicinity with enough power to charge the devices.
Since when did taking what someone said on the internet, especially a vague broad sweeping statement (eg what you said) and asking for a reference to back it up become ignorance?
I'd be reluctant to believe the word of someone who provides no evidence to back up their 'facts', and then dismisses anyone who asks for a reference as ignorant. Reminds me of arguments I've had with religious nuts.
snopes.com has a bunch of articles on the 'bits of people in food' subject... but they don't exactly back up your opinions. On the face of it, I think you've been listening to one too many urban legends.
This is the problem with our Trade Agreements. We enforce IP laws to no end, but other issues? Workers rights and safety issues never seem to come up.
Yes... the developed world thinks they got rid of slavery centuries ago, but really we just outsourced it.
People who eat meat at fast food joints are consuming (albeit in small portions) sterilized faeces and ground up other humans.
citation needed!
I designed it all based on what you know as mathematical principles.
Aha. I knew it! All those people talking about 'intelligent design' were right after all... except for the 'intelligent' bit. :p
I certainly suffer from a feeling of being an expert in all fields. Deep down I guess I know I'm not, but I'd probably rather just muddle my way through it assuming I know everything there is to know. The trick is knowing when something is sufficiently out of your field that you need to defer to someone who is an expert in that field. Statistics is just one example. Certainly a little bit of knowledge in a lot of fields is a good thing, but when you have to choose between 4 years of study vs consulting someone who's already done 4 years of study, the choice should be obvious... (assuming you aren't going to spend the rest of your programming life doing heavily statistics related programming :)
For me the frustration is taking the word of an expert without understanding why and how they have arrived at that answer. I guess statistics is one field where the answer that 'feels right' is often not the answer that is right. The number of people who buy lottery tickets is a good example of that :)
There may or may not be a genetic predisposition to nut and/or peanut allergy, but there is certainly a large environmental factor. Have a look at the way the allergies are clustered geographically, often in the areas where the pollens from the allergen plants are blown.
Your proposal probably wouldn't really be weeding out those with a genetic predisposition to nut allergies, it would be selecting for a genetic predisposition to _not_ having a nut allergy, which is much rarer, and would take many generations to weed out.
Various people over the coarse of history have tried this sort of manual (as opposed to natural) selection - you're in interesting company (I think I barely dodged Godwin on that one :)
400 years? That's about normal isn't it?
This sounds suspiciously like something that could be implemented via cross site scripting. You visit a link and happen to be logged into hotmail and it magically changes your autoreply for you. Like that thing that kept turning my google safe search off.
I wonder what the environmental impact will be of injecting hot air into the atmosphere at 2400 feet... given that the plume will probably rise a fair bit higher again due to it's momentum...
should have enough economic disincentives as to make them all but beyond the ability of anyone to procure
I prefer to think of it as balancing the books. If you actions are responsible for pumping x amount of pollution into the atmosphere then you should be responsible for cleaning it up. This cleaning up can happen in various ways, in the example of using electricity from coal fired power stations and only considering the CO2 pollution:
. The electricity company plants some trees or otherwise sucks the pollution out of the air, and charges you an increased rate for doing so
. The electricity company pays a third party to plant some trees, and on-charges you
. You plant some trees
. You pay a third party to plant some trees
. The government puts a tarriff on the cost of the electricity and plants some trees
Obviously that's insanely simplified, but the idea is that the cost of the product includes the cost of cleaning up the pollution produced in the manufacturing of that product.
Are such tariff's against the various free trade agreements that are floating around these days?
How about we realize that we are far more likely to be killed by our car or the food we eat then by terrorists?
I don't understand... Terrorists are driving our cars over us and poisoning our food now?
That's no fix, it just puts the problem off for another 10 years.
I had that thought too. Then I had another thought which was 'Meh'.