There are three basic types of volcano, based on the composition of the magma.
Basaltic. Heaviest magma. Eruptions produce thick, slow, lava flows. Most beautiful, least dangerous. examples: Hawaii (Mauna Loa).
Andesitic. Lighter magma of mixed composition. Eruptions are explosive; much more dangerous. West coast of North America (Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Redoubt)
Rhyolitic. Lightest magma. Eruptions can be cataclysmic. Most dangerous; if you live within 1000 miles of a big eruption, you can kiss your ass goodbye. (Yellowstone, most volcanoes in New Zealand.)
One thing we learned while on an Earthwatch volcano-monitoring expedition some years ago is that there are no "dead" volcanoes. We are merely talking in those cases about extremely long between-eruption periods, which can be millions of years.
I'm sure it's no picnic to have to deal with Time Warner. My cable company is Charter, and there is no joy there either. But let's cut straight to the quick:
After the year we have had, with deflation raging and with the consequent loss of jobs and other economic suffering all around, for anyone to demand a fee increase from anyone over anything is an OUTRAGE.
I have another complaint along similar lines. Why should there be any secret agreements between these companies, or any two corporations for that matter? Whatever the reasons why they might want to keep the agreements secret, the secrecy would seem to make public oversight difficult or impossible.
Granted, the entities involved are free to make some informal agreements among themselves. (They aren't free to make agreements to fix prices, hidden or otherwise!) But if they want to be able to use the legally constituted court system to enforce such agreements, then the contracts should be completely open and available to public inspection. (And not just after a lawsuit is filed: from the moment of signing.)
Aside: why should there be public oversight in this and similar cases? Imagine if your power were out for two days because of some secret spat between power companies!
Never mind the editors: what kind of imbecile spells the name wrong not once but three times when he includes a quotation which contains the correct spelling?
This isn't a suddenoutbreakofcommonsense, at least in the way the tagger meant it.
They just want to avoid legislation which would require opt-in before they could do any user tracking, with criminal penalties for failure to comply.
Trusting them to uphold this pledge in any meaningful way is like trusting the deregulated banks not to invest in overly risky derivatives. That should never have been left to their discretion; neither should this.
You wouldn't need to use two different browsers, I believe, just two different 'users' on firefox, with two different firefox profiles. It's easy to set up new profiles using firefox's profile manager (under Windows: firefox.exe --profilemanager). This brings along a whole different set of cookies for the different user. (Being logged on to a site as one user would not carry over simultaneously to the other user.)
Just double-click the desktop icon for the 'secure' user before doing online banking, etc., then close that user's firefox session when done.
Of course, this is just aimed at CSRF attacks (discussed by TFA), and doesn't address any of the concerns about keyloggers, etc. expressed in the posts above....
"give much credence to," not "take much credence to."
(Incidentally, I do not take issue with the parent for criticizing the paper. I would like to see all native speakers of English (at least) who write on Slashdot spell correctly and use English well.)
Right on. Of course they "denied" it. When do you ever see a liar admit that they are lying?
There really ought to be a death penalty for corporations, and it should have been applied to Microsoft long ago, when they were convicted of being abusive monopolists.
Re:More widely used than you'd know
on
Fedora Linux
·
· Score: 1
... I am tired of learning new operating systems just for the sake of learning new operating systems. I don't buy computers to run operating systems, I use operating systems to run PROGRAMS.
These days the most commonly used tags (besides yes and no) are itsatrap, fud, notfud, and duh. They occur so frequently (check this out for yourself) that they are all useless for searching. Furthermore, when somebody tags something fud, some other genius usually immediately tags it notfud. Furthermore, often neither tagger seems to understand what "fud" stands for. Furthermore, you can't usually tell whether the fud tag applies to the article or the post announcing the article, which often takes an opposite point of view.
I find the entire tagging mess so annoying that it is having the effect of discouraging me from reading slashdot altogether. I wish it would go away.
Xnview is cross-platform and is virtually equivalent to Irfanview, at least on Windows. (There have been some comments around the net to the effect that the Linux version lacks a few features present on the Windows version.) It is free as in beer, but not free as in speech.
Binary.rpm's are available (presumably for Fedora) here. I found a useful thread on installing Xnview on Ubuntu here.
I love the guy who tagged this article 'duh', as though it were somehow obvious a priori that user interest in news stories falls off with time by a power law instead an exponential law. He certainly must be a genius.
Well, somebody should mod this up as informative, for those of us reading this discussion to try to learn a little about what this is all about. However, the post is a little confusing in that some of the advice is for browser users (So, I hope that my explanation has shown why you are not better off automatically "not trusting" the root CA's, and deleting their certs), and some of it apaprently is for website owners (All you can do is pick a company known for security as your domain registar and use a STRONG password for the account), without a clear distinction being made as to who is "you."
As a browser user, the most common situation that comes up is that I visit some website and a "certificate expired" warning pops up. (Where does this come from?) Should I basically ignore this? (Most users do, I suspect.) If not, what should I do about it?
By the way, note that while there are 600+ posts on this overdone topic, none of the Vi or Emacs fans have bothered to reply to your objection. I too have tried Vi/Vim am sabotaged by muscle memory. But I don't bother anymore when there are superb open-source (configurable, cross-platform, quick-loading, CUA-aware) editors like SciTE (http://www.scintilla.org/SciTE.html) around.
Not that I think that Vi/Vim are all that well designed, from the point of view of remembering and using keystrokes. H,J,K,L may have seemed logical to somebody once, but my fingers never could "get it", wanting the up-arrow to be over the down arrow. (And is J up and K down or vice versa?) I had to revert to using the arrow keys to get anything done, which I suppose the Vi people will tell you defeats the speed advantage of the editor. I don't think this kind of "learning curve" is worth the trouble.
Instead of just complaining about the bad spelling and grammar around here, I thought I would take a moment to show how it should have been done. There are a great many SD readers whose native language is not English. (Unfortunately they are learning the language from SD posts.) Not all of them, at least, would know about "sic".
As to your point, it doesn't matter where the submitter's italicized text came from; the relevant point is that it is verbatim and not the submitter's own writing.
In such circumstances it is not pedantic to include "sic"; it is just good usage, colloquial or otherwise.
I don't know whether the submitter recognized the error or not.
I'm really not convinced that it's obvious from the posting.
I do agree with you that the editor might have fixed it. The "editing" of Slashdot scarcely deserves the name.
Yes, you are right that the original poster did not say "long" or "wide".
However, s/he should have said "long." The problem was given by Martin Gardner in Scientific American back in the 1950's. (He didn't invent it, so it's even older that that.) If you interpret it as "10 inches wide," the problem doesn't have a unique solution, as you saw. But if you specify it as "10 inches long," then (amazingly) there is a unique solution. Obviously the sphere has to be at least 10 inches in diameter, but you don't have to know the diameter! It takes a little calculus to prove it, but once you know there is a unique solution, you can see the answer in a split-second in your head, as did the first poster.
Well, I have to amend that a little. The monkey can't always eat ball k+n, because k+n might not be in the basket yet. However, the monkey can eat ball 2k for k=1,n (leaving n balls in the basket at time 12-1/n), and then chomp up all remaining balls dropped in the basket, as in the first problem.
So the answer "any cardinal from 0 to aleph-nought" still stands.
Well, the answer to the first problem is none, since at some time before noon the monkey eats each ball j, j=1,2....
In the second problem, we can imagine the balls as being labeled by their order of being dropped into the basket. (Countable choice required.) Then, if the ball the monkey eats is always ball k (at time 12 - 1/k), the number of balls remaining is none (as in the first problem.) On the other hand, the monkey may eat ball k+n (fixed n), so that balls 1,...n remain in the basket at noon. Or the monkey may always eat ball 2k, so that infinitely many balls remain in the basket. So the answer is any cardinal number from 0 to aleph-nought.
The wording of the problem implies that there is a unique solution, so I think the problem as offered is misleading.
PERMIT ME TO INFORM YOU OF MY DESIRE OF ENTERING INTO BUSINESS
RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU. I PRAYED OVER IT CONTACTING YOU DUE TO ITS
ESTEEMING NATURE. AS A REPUTABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON I CAN DO BUSINESS
WITH AND I WANT TO CONFIDE IN YOU FOR THIS SIMPLE AND SINCERE BUSINESS.
I ESTELLE OBIH THE DAUGHTER OF LATE MR. DAVID OBIH, MY FAHTER WAS A VERY
WEALTHY COCOA MERCHANT BASED IN ABIDJAN, THE ECONOMIC CAPITAL OF COTE
D'IVOIRE BEFORE HE WAS POISONED TO DEATH BY HIS BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, ON
ONE OF THEIR OUTING TO DISCUSS ON A BUSINESS DEAL.
WHEN MY MOTHER DIED ON THE 21ST OCTOBER 1995. MY FATHER TOOK ME SO SPECIAL
BECAUSE I AM MOTHERLESS.
BEFORE THE DEATH OF MY FATHER ON 29TH NOVEMBER 2003 IN A PRIVATE HOSPITAL
HERE IN ABIDJAN. HE SECRETLY CALLED ME ON HIS BEDSIDE AND TOLD ME THAT HE
HAS A SUM OF EIGHT MILLION, SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATE
DOLLARS.(USD$8.700,000) LEFT IN ONE OF THE LEADING FINANCE/SECURITY
COMPANY HERE IN ABIDJAN, IVORY COAST WEST AFRICA.
HE FURTHER TOLD ME THAT HE DEPOSITED THE MONEY IN A CONSIGNMENT (BOX),
CODED IT TO THE SECURITY COMPANY AS AFRICAN ARTIFACTS, SO THE SECURITY
COMPANY IS NOT AWARE THAT THE CONTENT OF THE CONSIGNMENT. HE DID THIS FOR
THE SAFETY OF THE MONEY.
HE ALSO EXPLAINED TO ME THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF THIS WEALTH THAT HE WAS
POISONED BY HIS BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, THAT I SHOULD SEEK FOR A FOREIGN
PARTNER IN A COUNTRY OF MY CHOICE WHERE I WILL TRANSFER THIS MONEY AND USE
IT FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSE.(SUCH AS REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT).
I AM HONOURABLY SEEKING YOUR ASSISTANCE IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS:
TO SERVE AS THE GUARDIAN OF THIS FUND AND MY YOUNGER BROTHER FRANK IS 20
YEARS. TO MAKE ARRANGEMENT FOR US TO COME OVER TO YOUR COUNTRY TO FURTHER
OUR EDUCATION AND TO SECURE A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT IN YOUR COUNTRY.
MOREOVER, I AM WILLING TO OFFER YOU 20% OF THE TOTAL SUM AS COMPENSATION
FOR YOUR EFFORT INPUT AFTER THE SUCCESSFUL COLLECTING THE BOX FROM THE
SECURITY FIRM.
FURTHERMORE, YOU CAN INDICATE YOUR OPTION TOWARDS ASSISTING ME BY SENDING
TO US YOUR TELEPHONE/FAX NUMBER, CONTACT ADDRESS, FULL NAME SO THAT WE CAN
BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU AT ANY TIME.
I WILL APPRECIATE YOU SEND ME E-MAIL. ANTICIPATING HEARING FROM YOU SOON.
PLEASE DO HURRY TO ASSIST US OUT HERE NOW THAT THIS COUNTRY IS IN
POLITICAL CHOAS, WE URGENTLY NEED YOUR KIND ATTENTION.
Slashdot Mirror
Now it's fixed.
There are three basic types of volcano, based on the composition of the magma.
Basaltic. Heaviest magma. Eruptions produce thick, slow, lava flows. Most beautiful, least dangerous. examples: Hawaii (Mauna Loa).
Andesitic. Lighter magma of mixed composition. Eruptions are explosive; much more dangerous. West coast of North America (Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Redoubt)
Rhyolitic. Lightest magma. Eruptions can be cataclysmic. Most dangerous; if you live within 1000 miles of a big eruption, you can kiss your ass goodbye. (Yellowstone, most volcanoes in New Zealand.)
One thing we learned while on an Earthwatch volcano-monitoring expedition some years ago is that there are no "dead" volcanoes. We are merely talking in those cases about extremely long between-eruption periods, which can be millions of years.
I'm sure it's no picnic to have to deal with Time Warner. My cable company is Charter, and there is no joy there either. But let's cut straight to the quick:
After the year we have had, with deflation raging and with the consequent loss of jobs and other economic suffering all around, for anyone to demand a fee increase from anyone over anything is an OUTRAGE.
I have another complaint along similar lines. Why should there be any secret agreements between these companies, or any two corporations for that matter? Whatever the reasons why they might want to keep the agreements secret, the secrecy would seem to make public oversight difficult or impossible.
Granted, the entities involved are free to make some informal agreements among themselves. (They aren't free to make agreements to fix prices, hidden or otherwise!) But if they want to be able to use the legally constituted court system to enforce such agreements, then the contracts should be completely open and available to public inspection. (And not just after a lawsuit is filed: from the moment of signing.)
Aside: why should there be public oversight in this and similar cases? Imagine if your power were out for two days because of some secret spat between power companies!
Never mind the editors: what kind of imbecile spells the name wrong not once but three times when he includes a quotation which contains the correct spelling?
This isn't a suddenoutbreakofcommonsense, at least in the way the tagger meant it. They just want to avoid legislation which would require opt-in before they could do any user tracking, with criminal penalties for failure to comply.
Trusting them to uphold this pledge in any meaningful way is like trusting the deregulated banks not to invest in overly risky derivatives. That should never have been left to their discretion; neither should this.
You wouldn't need to use two different browsers, I believe, just two different 'users' on firefox, with two different firefox profiles. It's easy to set up new profiles using firefox's profile manager (under Windows: firefox.exe --profilemanager). This brings along a whole different set of cookies for the different user. (Being logged on to a site as one user would not carry over simultaneously to the other user.)
Just double-click the desktop icon for the 'secure' user before doing online banking, etc., then close that user's firefox session when done.
Of course, this is just aimed at CSRF attacks (discussed by TFA), and doesn't address any of the concerns about keyloggers, etc. expressed in the posts above....
(Incidentally, I do not take issue with the parent for criticizing the paper. I would like to see all native speakers of English (at least) who write on Slashdot spell correctly and use English well.)
There really ought to be a death penalty for corporations, and it should have been applied to Microsoft long ago, when they were convicted of being abusive monopolists.
corporate version: 2006 - 2003 = 3. consumer version: 2007 - 2003 = 4.
This deserves to be modded +5 "Insightful"
These days the most commonly used tags (besides yes and no) are itsatrap, fud, notfud, and duh. They occur so frequently (check this out for yourself) that they are all useless for searching. Furthermore, when somebody tags something fud, some other genius usually immediately tags it notfud. Furthermore, often neither tagger seems to understand what "fud" stands for. Furthermore, you can't usually tell whether the fud tag applies to the article or the post announcing the article, which often takes an opposite point of view.
I find the entire tagging mess so annoying that it is having the effect of discouraging me from reading slashdot altogether. I wish it would go away.
Xnview is cross-platform and is virtually equivalent to Irfanview, at least on Windows. (There have been some comments around the net to the effect that the Linux version lacks a few features present on the Windows version.) It is free as in beer, but not free as in speech.
Binary .rpm's are available (presumably for Fedora) here. I found a useful thread on installing Xnview on Ubuntu here.
I love the guy who tagged this article 'duh', as though it were somehow obvious a priori that user interest in news stories falls off with time by a power law instead an exponential law. He certainly must be a genius.
Well, somebody should mod this up as informative, for those of us reading this discussion to try to learn a little about what this is all about. However, the post is a little confusing in that some of the advice is for browser users (So, I hope that my explanation has shown why you are not better off automatically "not trusting" the root CA's, and deleting their certs), and some of it apaprently is for website owners (All you can do is pick a company known for security as your domain registar and use a STRONG password for the account), without a clear distinction being made as to who is "you."
As a browser user, the most common situation that comes up is that I visit some website and a "certificate expired" warning pops up. (Where does this come from?) Should I basically ignore this? (Most users do, I suspect.) If not, what should I do about it?
Central hype-limit theorem: once in a while, somebody on SD says something positively brilliant. This was it. Mod it up.
The Wikipedia article for Common User Access is found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access
(Note the underlines).
By the way, note that while there are 600+ posts on this overdone topic, none of the Vi or Emacs fans have bothered to reply to your objection. I too have tried Vi/Vim am sabotaged by muscle memory. But I don't bother anymore when there are superb open-source (configurable, cross-platform, quick-loading, CUA-aware) editors like SciTE (http://www.scintilla.org/SciTE.html) around.
Not that I think that Vi/Vim are all that well designed, from the point of view of remembering and using keystrokes. H,J,K,L may have seemed logical to somebody once, but my fingers never could "get it", wanting the up-arrow to be over the down arrow. (And is J up and K down or vice versa?) I had to revert to using the arrow keys to get anything done, which I suppose the Vi people will tell you defeats the speed advantage of the editor. I don't think this kind of "learning curve" is worth the trouble.
Sigh. No good deed goes unpunished.
Instead of just complaining about the bad spelling and grammar around here, I thought I would take a moment to show how it should have been done. There are a great many SD readers whose native language is not English. (Unfortunately they are learning the language from SD posts.) Not all of them, at least, would know about "sic".
As to your point, it doesn't matter where the submitter's italicized text came from; the relevant point is that it is verbatim and not the submitter's own writing. In such circumstances it is not pedantic to include "sic"; it is just good usage, colloquial or otherwise.
I don't know whether the submitter recognized the error or not. I'm really not convinced that it's obvious from the posting.
I do agree with you that the editor might have fixed it. The "editing" of Slashdot scarcely deserves the name.
There is an idiom in English for reporting a text containing a misspelling or other inappropriate usage. The poster should have written:
But this imminent (sic) scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush..."
This points out the mistake to the reader while indicating that the poster recognized it.
Yes, you are right that the original poster did not say "long" or "wide".
However, s/he should have said "long." The problem was given by Martin Gardner in Scientific American back in the 1950's. (He didn't invent it, so it's even older that that.) If you interpret it as "10 inches wide," the problem doesn't have a unique solution, as you saw. But if you specify it as "10 inches long," then (amazingly) there is a unique solution. Obviously the sphere has to be at least 10 inches in diameter, but you don't have to know the diameter! It takes a little calculus to prove it, but once you know there is a unique solution, you can see the answer in a split-second in your head, as did the first poster.
Well, I have to amend that a little. The monkey can't always eat ball k+n, because k+n might not be in the basket yet. However, the monkey can eat ball 2k for k=1,n (leaving n balls in the basket at time 12-1/n), and then chomp up all remaining balls dropped in the basket, as in the first problem.
So the answer "any cardinal from 0 to aleph-nought" still stands.
Well, the answer to the first problem is none, since at some time before noon the monkey eats each ball j, j=1,2....
In the second problem, we can imagine the balls as being labeled by their order of being dropped into the basket. (Countable choice required.) Then, if the ball the monkey eats is always ball k (at time 12 - 1/k), the number of balls remaining is none (as in the first problem.) On the other hand, the monkey may eat ball k+n (fixed n), so that balls 1,...n remain in the basket at noon. Or the monkey may always eat ball 2k, so that infinitely many balls remain in the basket. So the answer is any cardinal number from 0 to aleph-nought.
The wording of the problem implies that there is a unique solution, so I think the problem as offered is misleading.
Hint: you're told the hole is exactly 10 inches long. How wide would the bit have to be to drill a 10 inch hole through the center of Jupiter?
The article has two links intended to allow the reader to compare a traditional web app to Ajax.
In Firefox 1.04, the 'traditional web app' link doesn't work: the form for posting comments doesn't appear. (It does work in IE).
The Ajax link throws up an error message:
Not all that impressive!
DEAR jefp,
PERMIT ME TO INFORM YOU OF MY DESIRE OF ENTERING INTO BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU. I PRAYED OVER IT CONTACTING YOU DUE TO ITS ESTEEMING NATURE. AS A REPUTABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON I CAN DO BUSINESS WITH AND I WANT TO CONFIDE IN YOU FOR THIS SIMPLE AND SINCERE BUSINESS.
I ESTELLE OBIH THE DAUGHTER OF LATE MR. DAVID OBIH, MY FAHTER WAS A VERY WEALTHY COCOA MERCHANT BASED IN ABIDJAN, THE ECONOMIC CAPITAL OF COTE D'IVOIRE BEFORE HE WAS POISONED TO DEATH BY HIS BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, ON ONE OF THEIR OUTING TO DISCUSS ON A BUSINESS DEAL.
WHEN MY MOTHER DIED ON THE 21ST OCTOBER 1995. MY FATHER TOOK ME SO SPECIAL BECAUSE I AM MOTHERLESS.
BEFORE THE DEATH OF MY FATHER ON 29TH NOVEMBER 2003 IN A PRIVATE HOSPITAL HERE IN ABIDJAN. HE SECRETLY CALLED ME ON HIS BEDSIDE AND TOLD ME THAT HE HAS A SUM OF EIGHT MILLION, SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATE DOLLARS.(USD$8.700,000) LEFT IN ONE OF THE LEADING FINANCE/SECURITY COMPANY HERE IN ABIDJAN, IVORY COAST WEST AFRICA.
HE FURTHER TOLD ME THAT HE DEPOSITED THE MONEY IN A CONSIGNMENT (BOX), CODED IT TO THE SECURITY COMPANY AS AFRICAN ARTIFACTS, SO THE SECURITY COMPANY IS NOT AWARE THAT THE CONTENT OF THE CONSIGNMENT. HE DID THIS FOR THE SAFETY OF THE MONEY.
HE ALSO EXPLAINED TO ME THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF THIS WEALTH THAT HE WAS POISONED BY HIS BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, THAT I SHOULD SEEK FOR A FOREIGN PARTNER IN A COUNTRY OF MY CHOICE WHERE I WILL TRANSFER THIS MONEY AND USE IT FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSE.(SUCH AS REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT).
I AM HONOURABLY SEEKING YOUR ASSISTANCE IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS:
TO SERVE AS THE GUARDIAN OF THIS FUND AND MY YOUNGER BROTHER FRANK IS 20 YEARS. TO MAKE ARRANGEMENT FOR US TO COME OVER TO YOUR COUNTRY TO FURTHER OUR EDUCATION AND TO SECURE A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT IN YOUR COUNTRY.
MOREOVER, I AM WILLING TO OFFER YOU 20% OF THE TOTAL SUM AS COMPENSATION FOR YOUR EFFORT INPUT AFTER THE SUCCESSFUL COLLECTING THE BOX FROM THE SECURITY FIRM.
FURTHERMORE, YOU CAN INDICATE YOUR OPTION TOWARDS ASSISTING ME BY SENDING TO US YOUR TELEPHONE/FAX NUMBER, CONTACT ADDRESS, FULL NAME SO THAT WE CAN BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU AT ANY TIME.
I WILL APPRECIATE YOU SEND ME E-MAIL. ANTICIPATING HEARING FROM YOU SOON. PLEASE DO HURRY TO ASSIST US OUT HERE NOW THAT THIS COUNTRY IS IN POLITICAL CHOAS, WE URGENTLY NEED YOUR KIND ATTENTION.
THANKS AND GOD BLESS
ESTELLE AND FRANK OBIH