If you think "faster" then you have never worked with robotics. I have spent some time working on AI systems for robotic exploration, and as the technology stands, we will never really learn anything until we get a person on the ground.
Perhaps someday robotics will catch up, but not today or in the foreseeable future.
you CAN'T make multimedia secure. The USER has to be able to view it, which means that you have to provide the user with a player to view it, and the key must be either in the player, or a way to get the key must be in the player. Either way you can reverse engineer the method, and decrypt the file, even if your encryption method is secure.
You can't have it both ways, you can't both let the user view the data while keeping the data secure from copying, at least not in a method that is safe from the most simple cracking.
Of course in this case it wasn't about securing the content, but the same principles apply.
perhaps "confirmed" was a bad choice of words. What I meant was that not all christian faiths would have a problem with the discovery of life outside of earth, some already believe in such life, and their religion teaches that there is such life, and would find their belief bulstered by such a discovery, not weakened.
It says God created the heavens and Earth, not heavens
That all depends on how you interpret the Hebrew shemim, which is clearly plural, implying that there is more than one heaven. The presence of the definite article is inconsequential in whether or not there were more than one of them, and in determining whether there are other earths created in the heavens.
Of course since such semantics is rather irrelevant since the heavens are interpreted in Genesis as being made out of water (why the sky is blue) and one must come to the conclusion that the writer of Genesis accepted the general scientific theories of his day (views also held by the Babylonians and the Egyptians, and which can be seen in other creation myths such as the Enuma Elish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enuma_Elish), and that God didn't bother to correct him in all his details.
What does that mean for belief? Some have interpreted this to mean that the Bible isn't inspired in any way, and others have interpreted this to mean that God wasn't interested in giving a science lesson but a theological lesson. Then you get the fundamentalist wackos who refuse to see the evidence for what the Bible is really describing.
Given that so many can see incorrect scientific ideas in Genesis, and still believe in God, and even in the Bible, (just not its inerrancy) I would say that evidence of life on another would not affect the faith of most people. Those who don't believe already are convinced, and no evidence will change their mind, and the same goes for those who believe.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saings religious movement has been saying that God created life on Earth AND life on other worlds for 200 years now.
First of all, I believe that you are over-generalizing. I have found that the brightest minds in my scientific field that I've come upon are mostly (though not all) believers. You may have had a different experience, but I think that it is untrue that MOST bright scientists are not believers.
Furthermore, it is not true that I (as a sample of one believer) am not concerned with the rights of anyone but other believers. It seems to me that the constitution demands that people can either believe or not as they choose, (and the battle over the founding fathers is humerous, with both sides claiming them for their own.)
However, our current course doesn't allow teachers in school, or people in public settings to take a middle ground. When you remove all mention of religion from school you are not neutral, you are taking a side for atheism.
Let me give you an example of the problems that I am talking about. In the highschool next to mine, the choir was ordered (by a court) not to sing a Christian song at their Christmas concert. The majority of the students wanted to sing it, but one student objected, and so the entire choir couldn't do it. The compromise was offered, that this one student didn't have to sing that one song, and it wouldn't affect her grade. This was rejected, the student would stop at nothing short of imposing her atheism on the rest of the students. She wanted to impose more than just her atheism, as many atheists that I know would have sung the song for its musical merit (many of the greatest music in the world has been faith based). She wanted to impose the idea that others couldn't express their faith in her presence.
You see, I don't believe that we are increasing freedom when we impose such restrictions. True freedom of speech allows her to speak, AND the rest of us to speak, but she wanted to silence everyone but herself. It seems to me that a more free and open approach would be beneficial for all sides involved. An approach where I (as a teacher) can say that I believe in God, or that I don't, where a student can pray or sing if they want, and another student can choose to participate (or not) if they want. Freedom. That's what I want, for those who believe AND for those who don't.
Even if you run firefox, you are running IE. The IE code is what you use to brouse your file-system, and it does a GREAT job. I have yet to see a linux file browser that works as cleanly.
I use Firefox, but I am glad that I still have the IE code. If you want to "strip" IE's ability to go to the web, fine, but why? I don't use it if I don't want to, and it isn't bothering me sitting there, and contrary to what everyone is saying, Firefox is competing rahter well, even with IE bundled.
We used to feel safe from online attacks. After all, if someone tried to brute force a rather simple password with a dictionary attack, such an attack would fail, because it could be easily detected and login attempts from that location can be blocked long before the password could be guessed.
However, a recent attack strategy that is becoming more popular is to pick a random user, and a randomly chosen password from a password dictionary and try that login at a random ip. This is surprisingly successful! Why? Because you are statistically just as likely to get in this way, as you are if you are attacking a specific location. So long as you don't care about a specific target, but just want to get into some/any computer this is a good attack strategy.
Once in, you can install a simple script that will continue the process, attacking more computers from the ones you already have access to. Many computers have been compromised in this manner, and are acting as zombies as evidenced by my log files. The number of these "attack logins" that I get every day is astounding!
Now, to remember your password requires a certain amount of work, but to be secure the password requires a certain amount of entropy. The greater the entropy the harder the password is to guess, but the harder it is to remember. In a security class on campus the professor asked the students to login and register a password, telling us that it was to check our grades, but he then gave us the hash of the passwords, and told us to have fun breaking each other's passwords. I found nearly half of them, with a standard dictionary attack. Fully half of these computer science students in a security class were using passwords that were clearly un-safe.
Sure, you can memorize one or two high entropy passwords, but you really don't want to use the same password for everything. Many "high entropy" passwords no longer have high entropy, because they are now in the dictionaries of common passwords. If you use one password in many locations, especially on un-trusted web locations, the chances that your password will end up in a password dictionary used by hackers goes up rather rapidly. If you use different passwords for each location, then you must remember all of them, and this becomes increasingly difficult.
The solution? Write your passwords down, then you can use truly cryptographically safe passwords, and at what cost? If your passwords are stolen, then you are in trouble, but it is rather easy to protect against that, and the chances of getting hacked from a remote location are much higher than are your chances of getting hacked from a local person who could steal the written version of your passwords.
My solution is to keep all my passwords on my keychain, in a single file, which is encrypted with a single cryptographically safe password. I also have a single backup stored at home. If I loose my keychain, I am ok... if someone steals my keychain, I am ok. And my passwords are safe.
This used to be paranoid, but the number of zombie machines out there, randomly guessing passwords is making this a reasonable solution. I have seen at least one account in the research lab where I work compromised in the manner described above because the professor in question had a good password, but one that just wasn't good enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Moore's law (the doubling of processors on a chip) has not slowed, but the rate of improvement in clock speeds have slowed dramatically since 2004: https://picasaweb.google.com/110921261135277605330/Economy#5621088196511836786 while the power of our super computers has continued to improve exponentially (through parallelization): https://picasaweb.google.com/110921261135277605330/Economy#5620432299391054642 and the cost/cps has continued to fall, both through falling prices for chips, and to a lesser degree through parallelization https://picasaweb.google.com/110921261135277605330/Economy#5615526200985811314
Perhaps someday robotics will catch up, but not today or in the foreseeable future.
umm, I fill 500 Gig in a few weeks with my mythtv recording Star Trek from Spike!
"Why must I choose to run an insecure program to access your web page? Support FIREFOX, after all, I am paying your salary."
Let's all send them a letter, email/.'d!
You can't have it both ways, you can't both let the user view the data while keeping the data secure from copying, at least not in a method that is safe from the most simple cracking.
Of course in this case it wasn't about securing the content, but the same principles apply.
perhaps "confirmed" was a bad choice of words. What I meant was that not all christian faiths would have a problem with the discovery of life outside of earth, some already believe in such life, and their religion teaches that there is such life, and would find their belief bulstered by such a discovery, not weakened.
That all depends on how you interpret the Hebrew shemim, which is clearly plural, implying that there is more than one heaven. The presence of the definite article is inconsequential in whether or not there were more than one of them, and in determining whether there are other earths created in the heavens.
Of course since such semantics is rather irrelevant since the heavens are interpreted in Genesis as being made out of water (why the sky is blue) and one must come to the conclusion that the writer of Genesis accepted the general scientific theories of his day (views also held by the Babylonians and the Egyptians, and which can be seen in other creation myths such as the Enuma Elish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enuma_Elish), and that God didn't bother to correct him in all his details.
What does that mean for belief? Some have interpreted this to mean that the Bible isn't inspired in any way, and others have interpreted this to mean that God wasn't interested in giving a science lesson but a theological lesson. Then you get the fundamentalist wackos who refuse to see the evidence for what the Bible is really describing.
Given that so many can see incorrect scientific ideas in Genesis, and still believe in God, and even in the Bible, (just not its inerrancy) I would say that evidence of life on another would not affect the faith of most people. Those who don't believe already are convinced, and no evidence will change their mind, and the same goes for those who believe.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saings religious movement has been saying that God created life on Earth AND life on other worlds for 200 years now.
First of all, I believe that you are over-generalizing. I have found that the brightest minds in my scientific field that I've come upon are mostly (though not all) believers. You may have had a different experience, but I think that it is untrue that MOST bright scientists are not believers. Furthermore, it is not true that I (as a sample of one believer) am not concerned with the rights of anyone but other believers. It seems to me that the constitution demands that people can either believe or not as they choose, (and the battle over the founding fathers is humerous, with both sides claiming them for their own.) However, our current course doesn't allow teachers in school, or people in public settings to take a middle ground. When you remove all mention of religion from school you are not neutral, you are taking a side for atheism. Let me give you an example of the problems that I am talking about. In the highschool next to mine, the choir was ordered (by a court) not to sing a Christian song at their Christmas concert. The majority of the students wanted to sing it, but one student objected, and so the entire choir couldn't do it. The compromise was offered, that this one student didn't have to sing that one song, and it wouldn't affect her grade. This was rejected, the student would stop at nothing short of imposing her atheism on the rest of the students. She wanted to impose more than just her atheism, as many atheists that I know would have sung the song for its musical merit (many of the greatest music in the world has been faith based). She wanted to impose the idea that others couldn't express their faith in her presence. You see, I don't believe that we are increasing freedom when we impose such restrictions. True freedom of speech allows her to speak, AND the rest of us to speak, but she wanted to silence everyone but herself. It seems to me that a more free and open approach would be beneficial for all sides involved. An approach where I (as a teacher) can say that I believe in God, or that I don't, where a student can pray or sing if they want, and another student can choose to participate (or not) if they want. Freedom. That's what I want, for those who believe AND for those who don't.
Even if you run firefox, you are running IE. The IE code is what you use to brouse your file-system, and it does a GREAT job. I have yet to see a linux file browser that works as cleanly. I use Firefox, but I am glad that I still have the IE code. If you want to "strip" IE's ability to go to the web, fine, but why? I don't use it if I don't want to, and it isn't bothering me sitting there, and contrary to what everyone is saying, Firefox is competing rahter well, even with IE bundled.
We used to feel safe from online attacks. After all, if someone tried to brute force a rather simple password with a dictionary attack, such an attack would fail, because it could be easily detected and login attempts from that location can be blocked long before the password could be guessed. However, a recent attack strategy that is becoming more popular is to pick a random user, and a randomly chosen password from a password dictionary and try that login at a random ip. This is surprisingly successful! Why? Because you are statistically just as likely to get in this way, as you are if you are attacking a specific location. So long as you don't care about a specific target, but just want to get into some/any computer this is a good attack strategy. Once in, you can install a simple script that will continue the process, attacking more computers from the ones you already have access to. Many computers have been compromised in this manner, and are acting as zombies as evidenced by my log files. The number of these "attack logins" that I get every day is astounding! Now, to remember your password requires a certain amount of work, but to be secure the password requires a certain amount of entropy. The greater the entropy the harder the password is to guess, but the harder it is to remember. In a security class on campus the professor asked the students to login and register a password, telling us that it was to check our grades, but he then gave us the hash of the passwords, and told us to have fun breaking each other's passwords. I found nearly half of them, with a standard dictionary attack. Fully half of these computer science students in a security class were using passwords that were clearly un-safe. Sure, you can memorize one or two high entropy passwords, but you really don't want to use the same password for everything. Many "high entropy" passwords no longer have high entropy, because they are now in the dictionaries of common passwords. If you use one password in many locations, especially on un-trusted web locations, the chances that your password will end up in a password dictionary used by hackers goes up rather rapidly. If you use different passwords for each location, then you must remember all of them, and this becomes increasingly difficult. The solution? Write your passwords down, then you can use truly cryptographically safe passwords, and at what cost? If your passwords are stolen, then you are in trouble, but it is rather easy to protect against that, and the chances of getting hacked from a remote location are much higher than are your chances of getting hacked from a local person who could steal the written version of your passwords. My solution is to keep all my passwords on my keychain, in a single file, which is encrypted with a single cryptographically safe password. I also have a single backup stored at home. If I loose my keychain, I am ok... if someone steals my keychain, I am ok. And my passwords are safe. This used to be paranoid, but the number of zombie machines out there, randomly guessing passwords is making this a reasonable solution. I have seen at least one account in the research lab where I work compromised in the manner described above because the professor in question had a good password, but one that just wasn't good enough.