I think we know. The thing is mono-hulled, only 18 feet long, and has a traditional rudder. Even if you want to exclude catamaran and trimaran kayaks, you're not going to be able to compete with the fastest kayaks out there -- which are longer and have underwater foil rudders.
Now, if the question is whether or not this is the fastest kayak you can get for under $5k, maybe you're onto something.
Note that max speed increases as hull length increases, though this depends on the seas as well. And I'm also referring to straight-line speed, a more maneuverable kayak will outperform a very long one on there-and-back type races of moderate or short length.
If the product is good enough, it won't be a problem.
There have been thousands of products over the years that succeeded without a descriptive name and without an advertising budget. I would expect this to be even more possible considering the nature of the Linux community and the ease of communication.
Also, one other thought -- I know several CxOs who think that a descriptive name confers 'generic' (and therefore inferior) status on a product. It implies that you're copying a named product. Would you like Cheerios or Toasted Oat Rings for breakfast?
float over the water in such a delicate fashion when you put 225 pounds of me in it
Especially considering that the rest of you is NOT going in the kayak... I think bloody stumps preclude 'delicate' as a descriptor any day. But that's just me... YMMV.
And here's some nice geeky info (albeit as a semi-sales pitch) about the factors contributing to speed. It does get a little technical, which is quite nice IMO.
Not only is this not the fastest kayak in the world, it's not even remotely close -- but I'd like to see the hull design advantages explained in the terms from the link I posted above, maybe even with some mathematical analysis.
On the other hand, 90% of the linux applications available have names that look like they were chosen by picking random letters and squishing them together.
Well, sabayon is a real word, from the French (not exactly 'some obscure language') -- it's a sauce made with egg yolks, sugar, and wine. It's very nice on fresh fruit, or desserts that have a little tartness to them. Isn't it nicer to have a product named after a nice sauce than to have one that comes from "alphabet soup"?
As to Ekiga, there might be some association in Japanese -- or maybe not.
Either way, what's the problem with naming a product something distinctive? You know, something that people will remember? Or would you rather have all things named descriptively? Why do we buy a Honda Accord or Nissan Altima, instead of a "[Honda|Nissan] Mid-class Sedan"? Doesn't that just confuse the issue when car manufacturers refuse to name their products according to what they do? I mean, it's a real pain in the butt for me to recall that a Dodge Ram is a Dodge Large Pickup Truck.
Except that the tumors in this case dodge the organ rejection mechanisms of the host -- antigen expression in the tumor is suppressed, so the host has no way of identifying the tumor as foreign.
So maybe it would be bettr to say:
Avoidance of histological response to a parasite: it's a feature of a bug.
"I rather thought we might disprove this, but it came out the other way around," said Robin Weiss, of University College London, who led the study appearing in today's issue of the journal Cell. "It is clearly a dog tumor cell behaving absolutely like a parasite." Weiss called the tumor transmission trick "a curiosity of nature."
This isn't the first time that a communicable parasite has evolved from a host's own cells and/or cell contents. Prions, such as the ones thought to cause BSE, are another intesting example, possible even harder to classify -- enough so that they've been given their own classification.
I would think that though the diseases from TFA originated as cancers, they now behave like parasites, and should either be labeled as such or given a new designation all their own.
7. And so, while lots of lawyers might probably get rich, nothing else significant is likely to happen.
Right, nothing significant will happen... huh?
Who's paying these legal fees? Right, the members of the RIAA. When they have to pay defendants' legal fees more often, they will find it is no longer close to profitable to chase individuals.
At that point, these frivolous lawsuits disappear.
Now, the problem is that no court has ruled that the primary lawsuits they've been using as threats for people to settle are frivolous. This is based upon the second lawsuit involving the defendant. What is needed is a watershed case where a judge legally tosses the RIAA out of court for its frivolous suit, and for that case to hold up on appeal. Then there is precedent, and the RIAA will have to screw itself, because even they can;t afford to pay legal fees for thousands of defendants they are wrongfully suing.
The relfe link you post -- it misses out on the all the benefits of the fractional reserve system. You know, the kind of capital investment that has led to the greatest technological revolutions in history.
On a more serious note, it would be cool to be able to feed in all of Wikipedia, and have some program figure out where the majority of disagreement and inconsistency lie. Probably have to wait a couple of decades for that, but on the plus side Wikipedia will have twenty million articles by then.
Ever notice that a lot of the time, those four digits are reordered?
That said, I suppose if someone had enough receipts of yours, they could get the full account number -- which is why a paper shredder is no longer an office-only appliance.
Might as well just rip of the Constitution and install a facsist government right now.
Didn't you get the memo? Or have you just awoken from a five-year coma? The US's new fascist government is in Beta testing; we'll find out this November if RC1 is going live in Jan'07, and we'll find out in Nov'08 if 1.0 is being released in Jan'09, or if we'll get RC2 instead.
I use one of these to access my bank's website for online banking, any security experts out there know if these are spoofable?
In order to hack my account, they'd need both a keylogger (I work in an office, so not too hard to install) and the physical "token ring" (as my bank likes to call them -- though it's not a ring, but a keychain). Good luck getting my keychain without me noticing.
I'm sorry, I must have forgotten the new definition of "monitoring." (Sorry for the sarcasm:)). I purposely did not write wiretapping or eavesdropping; monitoring calls (even after-the-fact) is exactly what they are doing.
"Looking at phone records" systematically IS monitoring, and shouldn't be prefaced with the word "just" -- it is a big deal.
"Internet activity", the same info web sites are selling to advertisers?
The government needs to be held to a higher standard than corporations. And no, it's more than the data sold to advertisers -- we're talking entire search logs. And that's on the large scale -- they can get an individual's internet activity log simply by asking an ISP -- and the ISP is forbidden to tell you that they have handed the information over. Same for library records, etc.
It's also justified massive amounts of research spending on technology useful in surveillance of the public, enforcement of non-related laws, and apprehension of suspects. Sure some people have genuine altruistic motives, but I personally feel the WoD is also a smokescreen.
George Bush [the first] says 'we are losing the war on drugs'. Well you know what that implies? There's a war going on, and people on drugs are winning it! Well what does that tell you about drugs? Some smart, creative motherfuckers on that side.
I stopped using recreational drugs other than alcohol about 9 years ago, but I totally agree with both Bill Hicks and you.
While I'm not going to deny the possibility that they do have more up their sleeves, I think the past couple years have made me less likely to don the tin foil.
I understand that it's pretty easy to think of the Federal government in a kind of "Keystone Cops" role. But despite their blundering, they have been steadily increasing domestic surveillance via many means.
There are still many capable people in high places, and given what they've been doing since 2001 (and earlier), one MUST be suspicious. Of course, there is a not-so-fine line between being suspicious and being paranoid, but recent relevations of domestic surveillance becoming more and more common mean that we have to be MORE distrustful than ever, not less.
And, to just repeat what many tinfoilhatters have said, if you believe our government is too inept to maintain complex surveillance programs, then they've done the onfuscation part of their job correctly.
One of the primary rules of espionage is to just blend in, fade into the background, don't call attention to yourself.
Ah, yes, one would want to avoid the classic blunders, including never getting involved in a land war in Asia and never getting into it with a Sicilian when death is on the line.
Might I just add two things:
(1) The backdoor could have been a previous patch cycle. Or planned for a future patch cycle. Establish a habit of compliance, then do the dastardly deed. /tinfoil hat on, for good reason.
(2) As to blending in and fading into the background, not necessarily so. DHS could easily be unaware of the actions of other agencies that are actually doing the espionage (e.g, the NSA). This would be called misdirection. At this point, what with the monitoring of telephone calls, internet activity, etc domestically, it's giving too much credit to the government to think that they AREN'T trying to expand their monitoring capabilities at every opportunity. Or do you think that they've suddenly stopped?
Or it could be DHS making a publicity move. They've got to justify their budget to the public somehow, and a lot of what they do is behind-the-scenes stuff.
Also, to be cynical as ever, we DO have elections coming up in a few months.
As far as I'm concerned, the boy has cried wolf far too many times for me to react to any warning DHS or any other governmment agency says about threats.
You're an idiot. Which part of the paragraph I qioted from your f-in link didn't you understand? Why didn't you ever bother learning to read comprehensively? You know, the little bit about a one-sentence tag line at the beginning of an article never being the whole truth?
And why are you using wikipedia as a definitive resource? Really, you need to get a clue.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we know. The thing is mono-hulled, only 18 feet long, and has a traditional rudder. Even if you want to exclude catamaran and trimaran kayaks, you're not going to be able to compete with the fastest kayaks out there -- which are longer and have underwater foil rudders.
Now, if the question is whether or not this is the fastest kayak you can get for under $5k, maybe you're onto something.
Note that max speed increases as hull length increases, though this depends on the seas as well. And I'm also referring to straight-line speed, a more maneuverable kayak will outperform a very long one on there-and-back type races of moderate or short length.
Cancer-hawk disease? Sweet. How about "Oncoraptors"?
Yeah, I know you mean peregrine as in ambulatory. How about heterometastasizing oncocytes? Then we could call HMOs a type of cancer for real.
If the product is good enough, it won't be a problem.
There have been thousands of products over the years that succeeded without a descriptive name and without an advertising budget. I would expect this to be even more possible considering the nature of the Linux community and the ease of communication.
Also, one other thought -- I know several CxOs who think that a descriptive name confers 'generic' (and therefore inferior) status on a product. It implies that you're copying a named product. Would you like Cheerios or Toasted Oat Rings for breakfast?
And here's some nice geeky info (albeit as a semi-sales pitch) about the factors contributing to speed. It does get a little technical, which is quite nice IMO.
Not only is this not the fastest kayak in the world, it's not even remotely close -- but I'd like to see the hull design advantages explained in the terms from the link I posted above, maybe even with some mathematical analysis.
Huh? Not remotely -- this is not a hovercraft. This is simply an ultra-light kayak with a differently shaped hull based on racing boat designs.
Nor is it the world's fastest kayak, at least not according to TFA. The best it's finished in a competitive race is 6 seconds out of 1st place.
OK, it's pretty cool, and I'd like to take it on the Hudson sometime. But don't overhype it, please.
As to Ekiga, there might be some association in Japanese -- or maybe not.
Either way, what's the problem with naming a product something distinctive? You know, something that people will remember? Or would you rather have all things named descriptively? Why do we buy a Honda Accord or Nissan Altima, instead of a "[Honda|Nissan] Mid-class Sedan"? Doesn't that just confuse the issue when car manufacturers refuse to name their products according to what they do? I mean, it's a real pain in the butt for me to recall that a Dodge Ram is a Dodge Large Pickup Truck.
Organ Rejection: It's a feature not a bug
Except that the tumors in this case dodge the organ rejection mechanisms of the host -- antigen expression in the tumor is suppressed, so the host has no way of identifying the tumor as foreign.
So maybe it would be bettr to say:
Avoidance of histological response to a parasite: it's a feature of a bug.
This isn't the first time that a communicable parasite has evolved from a host's own cells and/or cell contents. Prions, such as the ones thought to cause BSE, are another intesting example, possible even harder to classify -- enough so that they've been given their own classification.
I would think that though the diseases from TFA originated as cancers, they now behave like parasites, and should either be labeled as such or given a new designation all their own.
Who's paying these legal fees? Right, the members of the RIAA. When they have to pay defendants' legal fees more often, they will find it is no longer close to profitable to chase individuals.
At that point, these frivolous lawsuits disappear.
Now, the problem is that no court has ruled that the primary lawsuits they've been using as threats for people to settle are frivolous. This is based upon the second lawsuit involving the defendant. What is needed is a watershed case where a judge legally tosses the RIAA out of court for its frivolous suit, and for that case to hold up on appeal. Then there is precedent, and the RIAA will have to screw itself, because even they can;t afford to pay legal fees for thousands of defendants they are wrongfully suing.
US Congressional elections in 3 months. Coincidence?
The relfe link you post -- it misses out on the all the benefits of the fractional reserve system. You know, the kind of capital investment that has led to the greatest technological revolutions in history.
That's why I put the "token ring" in quotes -- because it's clearly not what you or I would consider to be a token ring.
Did you really need to ask?
Ever notice that a lot of the time, those four digits are reordered?
That said, I suppose if someone had enough receipts of yours, they could get the full account number -- which is why a paper shredder is no longer an office-only appliance.
A Solution
I use one of these to access my bank's website for online banking, any security experts out there know if these are spoofable?
In order to hack my account, they'd need both a keylogger (I work in an office, so not too hard to install) and the physical "token ring" (as my bank likes to call them -- though it's not a ring, but a keychain). Good luck getting my keychain without me noticing.
"Looking at phone records" systematically IS monitoring, and shouldn't be prefaced with the word "just" -- it is a big deal.
The government needs to be held to a higher standard than corporations. And no, it's more than the data sold to advertisers -- we're talking entire search logs. And that's on the large scale -- they can get an individual's internet activity log simply by asking an ISP -- and the ISP is forbidden to tell you that they have handed the information over. Same for library records, etc.
It's also justified massive amounts of research spending on technology useful in surveillance of the public, enforcement of non-related laws, and apprehension of suspects. Sure some people have genuine altruistic motives, but I personally feel the WoD is also a smokescreen.
I stopped using recreational drugs other than alcohol about 9 years ago, but I totally agree with both Bill Hicks and you.
There are still many capable people in high places, and given what they've been doing since 2001 (and earlier), one MUST be suspicious. Of course, there is a not-so-fine line between being suspicious and being paranoid, but recent relevations of domestic surveillance becoming more and more common mean that we have to be MORE distrustful than ever, not less.
And, to just repeat what many tinfoilhatters have said, if you believe our government is too inept to maintain complex surveillance programs, then they've done the onfuscation part of their job correctly.
Might I just add two things:
(1) The backdoor could have been a previous patch cycle. Or planned for a future patch cycle. Establish a habit of compliance, then do the dastardly deed.
/tinfoil hat on, for good reason.
(2) As to blending in and fading into the background, not necessarily so. DHS could easily be unaware of the actions of other agencies that are actually doing the espionage (e.g, the NSA). This would be called misdirection. At this point, what with the monitoring of telephone calls, internet activity, etc domestically, it's giving too much credit to the government to think that they AREN'T trying to expand their monitoring capabilities at every opportunity. Or do you think that they've suddenly stopped?
Or it could be DHS making a publicity move. They've got to justify their budget to the public somehow, and a lot of what they do is behind-the-scenes stuff.
Also, to be cynical as ever, we DO have elections coming up in a few months.
As far as I'm concerned, the boy has cried wolf far too many times for me to react to any warning DHS or any other governmment agency says about threats.
You're an idiot. Which part of the paragraph I qioted from your f-in link didn't you understand? Why didn't you ever bother learning to read comprehensively? You know, the little bit about a one-sentence tag line at the beginning of an article never being the whole truth?
And why are you using wikipedia as a definitive resource? Really, you need to get a clue.