Well, I seriously doubt that you are the type of person that would have set foot in newark prior to the cameras. I work there now and they have a camera on the street which I work.
The purpose of government is to provide a sense of security; to provide an environment in which you can flourish. Newark was nowhere near that setup. if walking down the street was taking a risk - I assure you that you would give up freedoms. The level of freedoms you will give up will be directly proportional to the level of threat you feel.
At a baseline, we have given up community property rights, the right to drive at will, along with hundreds of other petty infringements of our freedom just to make sure people don't run us over on the streets, or so car accidents are minimized. Cameras in PUBLIC areas allowing officers to see a broader area is hardly an infringement of our liberty. One, this provides more substantive evidence that a crime is being committed than the word of one officer. It forces ethical responses from the officers. It provides a real sense of security for the people there.
When you end up in an environment where robbery is as daily occurrence and murder isn't out of the ordinary, I would love to see you continue to insist that police officers not be aggressive and that the areas you are in be unmonitored. Most people will demand a more aggressive stand by law enforcement and honestly this sounds a lot better than road blocks and car searches.
Well, I realize that your post was meant as a joke, but the problem with using religous views is that they do not protect you from having to perform duties.
If you are a bacon bits tester at World Famous Bacon Bits Inc., and you then convert to Islam and claim you can not eat bacon - you can be fired. Yes you are merely defending your religous beliefs; however, these beliefs interfere in your ability to perform a job. You are not being fired for being Muslim but for not tasting the bacon bits. You are free to choose any religon and that can not be used to discriminate, but your religous or ethical views can be used to fire you if they interfere with your ability to do work. It is partially subjective, but there are requirements that reasonable efforts be made. Requiring the saboth off can be worked around, but when the work requires you to break your religous views - you can not use that as an excuse to get out of the work.
On the flip side, if you apply for a job to be a bacon bit taster and you are muslim - they can not discriminate on that fact so long as you are willing to do the work.
If you were to use the religious defense - which may not be unreasonable, the best it seems that can be achieved is that you find someone else in the comp to complete the patent process and find a way for you to continue doing work without getting involved. If your involvement is needed, then you still don't have a means out.
unless you posted anonymously before, grandparent doesn't count for you. unless you posted anonymously before, grandparent doesn't count for you. unless you posted anonymously before, grandparent doesn't count for you.
Can't be true. The Asgard went instinct, but not before transferring their wealth of knowledge to man kind. If it was from the Asgard, they would have been gone when the replicators got them!
The inverse square law refers to open areas without reflection/refraction and equal dispersal of a beam. Lasers and directional antennas don't obey it. When inside a bus, the signal is reflected. This means that the amount of energy hitting objects within the bus is increased. Nonionizing radiation hitting tissue is absorbed as heat. Some is absorbed when it first passes through your head then more is absorbed as it reflects off the metal in the bus multiple times. Of course there are other non-metal items to absorb heat and dampen the radiation - as well as that which passes through the metal. Long story short, You get hit with more radiation within the bus than would be predicted by the inverse square law.
Grandparents post stands up to critical analysis though you are probably right as to the actual amount of increase being negligable
1) not being paid IS NOT a qualification - it suggests but does not prove impartiality 2) same as above because it is the same thing in different words
personally, I think there will be less hoopla made about the dangers once a decent replacement technology comes out - then they will use this fear of radiation as reason to switch. First, RF is non-ionizing radiation - like the radiation of an ultrasound machine.
The problem with most studies of this type is that they are case controlled and there are obvious recall biases at play. I don't think this will be easy to determine by most people. The fact that the radiation is non-ionizing should put most people to ease.
Here is a controlled trial in rats - only issue i have is distance to localized tissue - if u standardize to the weight of the animal, human tissue at closest exposure receives more radiation + many people use them long enough to heat/burn local tissue. That is a completely different effect than low heat non-ionizing radiation.
well, I was thinking of a transition device - maintain mouse functionality - motion on the table and have the ability to use it off the table as well in the same fashion as the wii remote. Keep in mind I don't play games and have used the wii remote only once in my life and wasn't the biggest fan.
Personally, I believe that a myriad of new input methods will displace - not replace standard input options. Voice recognition, improved "mouse", touchscreen in combination are a versatile solution for a populace that DOES NOT USE A COMPUTER FOR 8 HOURS A DAY. Another poster commented that the floppy and mouse are completely different. I only brought that up to suggest that timeframes in the computer industry move quickly and it doesn't take much time to displace the standard.
If people could buy a "mouse" with off table motion capabilities, they would. The application layer would follow.
kinda like how the floppy drive stuck around for 25 years? I haven't had one in a computer for the last 6 years.
I think the wii remote is the natural transition. it can effectively function as a mouse drop-in relacement for current apps and have added function for new ones... kinda like a wheel-mouse.
well at least that'll get rid of most of my spam... let me tell the spammers now what I would be interested in so they can find me the best deal in Russia, Canada and/or Nigeria.
Personally, I would be much more concerned about the con artists... Could you imagine the lonely but uncharacteristically unsophisticated/. nerd who gets a message from a hot rich Nigerian princess trying to escape an arranged marriage and wants to meet you, but needs another account to use to get safely out of the country before she can empty her fathers bank accounts.... um... excuse me, but this is good material... I um... need to go email some people about something... umm... thats different and not a scam....
that's what I thought. I was just curious to see if it had changed without me having heard about it - I don't work on "real" clusters. I was thinking that with 64-bit hardware it would be possible to address memory on another machine that would than halt the process and allow remote memory access hardware kick in to move the data locally - ie a page move - much like a program accessing a page in a swap file. access time across a network would be horribly slow to not move the data closer to the cpu.
I believe the memory is aggregate and so is the bandwidth...so per core memory bandwidth is only 5PB/300K cores/s
The real question is how memory allocation is done in per core - does each core have unrestricted access to the full 620TB or is it a cluster with each machine having unrestricted access to a subset and a software interface to move data to other nodes.
if anyone here has insight on this, please fill in the giant blank.
well, for one, I only saw your reply because I have an account and it showed 1 reply below my threshold on my user page.
secondly, I found another "irtza" (didn't think it was possible) on the net while seeing what google/yahoo/dog pile knew about me. Once I saw that, I tried to grab my name on as many sites as possible.
While I agree that buffer overflows are more dangerous and difficult to debug, I wanted to note that the above code would fail in the case of a library function that returns preallocated code as that function would either have to be recompiled to make use of the allocation tracker or would be missed by this routine. From my understanding, there are debuggers that can replace malloc with something similar to what you propose, but on that hand there are also debuggers that can detect buffer overflows by allocating bytes beyond that returned by malloc and breaking if they are written to.... quick search yields electric fence:)
Just a note, I certainly have written a function to allocate new memory and concatenate because it is unbelievably useful and saves a ton of code. This is all just for discussion and my education;) (had no clue what was needed to actually allocate protected mem after a malloc).
While I agree the addition of these functions would be very useful, and having a standardized way to do it in posix would simplify things greatly, you must also realize that this method is a tradeoff. Whenever C routines automatically allocate a new buffer, someone had better free() it later. You solve the buffer overflow problem and replace it with a memory leak. Any argument to the point of "make sure you track pointers" or "most programs don't run long enough for this to matter" can be as dangerous as "you should check the data before copying it into a buffer". This is why high level languages exist. They take away a lot of the menial tasks that C doesn't handle. Its a trade off of control/power/performance for ease of programming/code maintenance/reduced bugs. Most of my programming is done in C, but that is because of my own comfort with the language. I learned it growing up, and I feel more comfortable with it. I am not a professional programmer, so learning more programming languages isn't really what interests me (I do know java and basic, but have a harder time accomplishing my goals with those). Since garbage collection is so closely tied with the system itself, implementing an automatic one in C properly seems a bit difficult (though it should be a bit easier in C++ since you can create a list to track new allocations and overide the assignment variable to add each eassigned variable to the list of things "pointing to an allocation" and delist what it was pointing at.) Looking at this post, I realize I should have hit "enter" at some point... oh well.
well, people having fun in their own twisted way is fine.... forcing this way onto a child without the capacity to make an informed decision seems a bit wrong.
Lets also add a few other reasons to restrict rights - they can infringe on the rights of others... you may wish to smoke fags and what not, but second hand smoke is irritating and if enough people find it that way, then they will seek recourse to curb your right to smoke in places in which it affects them. If you wish to fuck big brother or me, that poses yet another impingement on my freedoms and I too would seek protection from the law.
Your desire to smoke fags and rape may indeed be problems that the rest of us will have to deal with - not even stepping into the areas of medical care and how much the pulmonary complications of smoking raises medical insurance costs and the excessive stress it has placed on the medical establishment.
so you see, the point I was trying to make is that this entire post should be read in a sarcastic and jaded tone. I don't really care if you smoke or are resentful towards your fellow man. I just saw an opportunity to twist your words and took it. Thank you for that opportunity and have a pleasant day. Peace and may tar/SCLC be with you.
These already exist in shopping malls - like to the entrance of a top deck parking lot secondary to weight constraints.
Implementing them on the roads would likely be as easy.
I did read it. If you have a correction to make, I would be more than happy to hear it. My only point was that reducing the energy of activation can save energy cost. How is this incorrect?
but encryption is also how they keep people from getting channels they aren't paying for. I have no problem with them encrypting the channels.
What would be better is if they had a standard algorithm for encryption, so it can be implemented by third parties. That way they can provide you with the key after you pay for it. Still a fair deal since you can then implement your own software. They assure that casual piracy is eliminated and thus protect their basic interests.
Unless you want to eliminate the cable system as it exists now, a means to protect premium and pay-per-view channels must be in place.
I honestly think, the high revenues for the movie industry are necessary to continue the production of truly spectacular movies. I know many here disagree, but I assure you that without potential for enormous profits, only an eccentric billionaire would fund the tens of millions used to make some of the great movies (yes I know there are great movies made for a lot less, but come-on - there is an appeal to movies like star wars and die hard).
I think its the abuse of the copyright term that is the main problem. The last extension to copyright was almost as good as making copyright indefinite and is an insult to the required time limit clause on copyrights.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I seriously doubt that you are the type of person that would have set foot in newark prior to the cameras. I work there now and they have a camera on the street which I work.
The purpose of government is to provide a sense of security; to provide an environment in which you can flourish. Newark was nowhere near that setup. if walking down the street was taking a risk - I assure you that you would give up freedoms. The level of freedoms you will give up will be directly proportional to the level of threat you feel.
At a baseline, we have given up community property rights, the right to drive at will, along with hundreds of other petty infringements of our freedom just to make sure people don't run us over on the streets, or so car accidents are minimized. Cameras in PUBLIC areas allowing officers to see a broader area is hardly an infringement of our liberty. One, this provides more substantive evidence that a crime is being committed than the word of one officer. It forces ethical responses from the officers. It provides a real sense of security for the people there.
When you end up in an environment where robbery is as daily occurrence and murder isn't out of the ordinary, I would love to see you continue to insist that police officers not be aggressive and that the areas you are in be unmonitored. Most people will demand a more aggressive stand by law enforcement and honestly this sounds a lot better than road blocks and car searches.
that depends.... where?
Well, I realize that your post was meant as a joke, but the problem with using religous views is that they do not protect you from having to perform duties. If you are a bacon bits tester at World Famous Bacon Bits Inc., and you then convert to Islam and claim you can not eat bacon - you can be fired. Yes you are merely defending your religous beliefs; however, these beliefs interfere in your ability to perform a job. You are not being fired for being Muslim but for not tasting the bacon bits. You are free to choose any religon and that can not be used to discriminate, but your religous or ethical views can be used to fire you if they interfere with your ability to do work. It is partially subjective, but there are requirements that reasonable efforts be made. Requiring the saboth off can be worked around, but when the work requires you to break your religous views - you can not use that as an excuse to get out of the work.
On the flip side, if you apply for a job to be a bacon bit taster and you are muslim - they can not discriminate on that fact so long as you are willing to do the work.
btw, I am just assuming this is true - just vague memories of reading some things about this. Here's a link
http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19970819-3275.html
If you were to use the religious defense - which may not be unreasonable, the best it seems that can be achieved is that you find someone else in the comp to complete the patent process and find a way for you to continue doing work without getting involved. If your involvement is needed, then you still don't have a means out.
already to 111 posts and non one has says:
all your data are belong to google /. I am disappointed.
unless you posted anonymously before, grandparent doesn't count for you.
unless you posted anonymously before, grandparent doesn't count for you.
unless you posted anonymously before, grandparent doesn't count for you.
wait, this method only would get me one... d'oh!
agreed. Just felt that the rational for not using it in the bus/car/enclosed space could use a little help.
Can't be true. The Asgard went instinct, but not before transferring their wealth of knowledge to man kind. If it was from the Asgard, they would have been gone when the replicators got them!
The inverse square law refers to open areas without reflection/refraction and equal dispersal of a beam. Lasers and directional antennas don't obey it. When inside a bus, the signal is reflected. This means that the amount of energy hitting objects within the bus is increased. Nonionizing radiation hitting tissue is absorbed as heat. Some is absorbed when it first passes through your head then more is absorbed as it reflects off the metal in the bus multiple times. Of course there are other non-metal items to absorb heat and dampen the radiation - as well as that which passes through the metal. Long story short, You get hit with more radiation within the bus than would be predicted by the inverse square law.
Grandparents post stands up to critical analysis though you are probably right as to the actual amount of increase being negligable
1) not being paid IS NOT a qualification - it suggests but does not prove impartiality
2) same as above because it is the same thing in different words
personally, I think there will be less hoopla made about the dangers once a decent replacement technology comes out - then they will use this fear of radiation as reason to switch. First, RF is non-ionizing radiation - like the radiation of an ultrasound machine.
Also, to answer the comment about "burying the data" - the medical literature is full of research on this very topic - ipsilateral gliomas are associated with cell phone use in a metastudy analysis
http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/article.jsp?article_id=ijo_32_5_1097
The problem with most studies of this type is that they are case controlled and there are obvious recall biases at play. I don't think this will be easy to determine by most people. The fact that the radiation is non-ionizing should put most people to ease.
some more from pub med:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18063591?ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Here is a controlled trial in rats - only issue i have is distance to localized tissue - if u standardize to the weight of the animal, human tissue at closest exposure receives more radiation + many people use them long enough to heat/burn local tissue. That is a completely different effect than low heat non-ionizing radiation.
You will notice consistent lack of power in the studies described.... hope this is useful stuff.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17903030?ordinalpos=16&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
3 months? I lose interest after just a couple of sec
well, I was thinking of a transition device - maintain mouse functionality - motion on the table and have the ability to use it off the table as well in the same fashion as the wii remote. Keep in mind I don't play games and have used the wii remote only once in my life and wasn't the biggest fan.
Personally, I believe that a myriad of new input methods will displace - not replace standard input options. Voice recognition, improved "mouse", touchscreen in combination are a versatile solution for a populace that DOES NOT USE A COMPUTER FOR 8 HOURS A DAY. Another poster commented that the floppy and mouse are completely different. I only brought that up to suggest that timeframes in the computer industry move quickly and it doesn't take much time to displace the standard.
If people could buy a "mouse" with off table motion capabilities, they would. The application layer would follow.
kinda like how the floppy drive stuck around for 25 years? I haven't had one in a computer for the last 6 years.
I think the wii remote is the natural transition. it can effectively function as a mouse drop-in relacement for current apps and have added function for new ones... kinda like a wheel-mouse.
in fact, you might as well add a 2D wheel on it.
The thought that this came from the inside really struck me. Now my head hurts. Thanks a lot.
well at least that'll get rid of most of my spam... let me tell the spammers now what I would be interested in so they can find me the best deal in Russia, Canada and/or Nigeria.
Personally, I would be much more concerned about the con artists... Could you imagine the lonely but uncharacteristically unsophisticated /. nerd who gets a message from a hot rich Nigerian princess trying to escape an arranged marriage and wants to meet you, but needs another account to use to get safely out of the country before she can empty her fathers bank accounts.... um... excuse me, but this is good material... I um... need to go email some people about something... umm... thats different and not a scam....
that's what I thought. I was just curious to see if it had changed without me having heard about it - I don't work on "real" clusters. I was thinking that with 64-bit hardware it would be possible to address memory on another machine that would than halt the process and allow remote memory access hardware kick in to move the data locally - ie a page move - much like a program accessing a page in a swap file. access time across a network would be horribly slow to not move the data closer to the cpu.
Thanks for your input.
I believe the memory is aggregate and so is the bandwidth...so per core memory bandwidth is only 5PB/300K cores/s
The real question is how memory allocation is done in per core - does each core have unrestricted access to the full 620TB or is it a cluster with each machine having unrestricted access to a subset and a software interface to move data to other nodes.
if anyone here has insight on this, please fill in the giant blank.
well, for one, I only saw your reply because I have an account and it showed 1 reply below my threshold on my user page. secondly, I found another "irtza" (didn't think it was possible) on the net while seeing what google/yahoo/dog pile knew about me. Once I saw that, I tried to grab my name on as many sites as possible.
While I agree that buffer overflows are more dangerous and difficult to debug, I wanted to note that the above code would fail in the case of a library function that returns preallocated code as that function would either have to be recompiled to make use of the allocation tracker or would be missed by this routine. From my understanding, there are debuggers that can replace malloc with something similar to what you propose, but on that hand there are also debuggers that can detect buffer overflows by allocating bytes beyond that returned by malloc and breaking if they are written to.... quick search yields electric fence :)
Just a note, I certainly have written a function to allocate new memory and concatenate because it is unbelievably useful and saves a ton of code. This is all just for discussion and my education ;) (had no clue what was needed to actually allocate protected mem after a malloc).
While I agree the addition of these functions would be very useful, and having a standardized way to do it in posix would simplify things greatly, you must also realize that this method is a tradeoff. Whenever C routines automatically allocate a new buffer, someone had better free() it later. You solve the buffer overflow problem and replace it with a memory leak. Any argument to the point of "make sure you track pointers" or "most programs don't run long enough for this to matter" can be as dangerous as "you should check the data before copying it into a buffer". This is why high level languages exist. They take away a lot of the menial tasks that C doesn't handle. Its a trade off of control/power/performance for ease of programming/code maintenance/reduced bugs. Most of my programming is done in C, but that is because of my own comfort with the language. I learned it growing up, and I feel more comfortable with it. I am not a professional programmer, so learning more programming languages isn't really what interests me (I do know java and basic, but have a harder time accomplishing my goals with those). Since garbage collection is so closely tied with the system itself, implementing an automatic one in C properly seems a bit difficult (though it should be a bit easier in C++ since you can create a list to track new allocations and overide the assignment variable to add each eassigned variable to the list of things "pointing to an allocation" and delist what it was pointing at.) Looking at this post, I realize I should have hit "enter" at some point... oh well.
I always thought the user number was a dead give away.
ok looking at my #, "always" is a bit longer than the time that I have held this view
white, anglosaxan protestants can't fly and whatever issues you may have had, you shouldn't generalize to the entire poulation - its rascist
well, people having fun in their own twisted way is fine.... forcing this way onto a child without the capacity to make an informed decision seems a bit wrong.
Lets also add a few other reasons to restrict rights - they can infringe on the rights of others... you may wish to smoke fags and what not, but second hand smoke is irritating and if enough people find it that way, then they will seek recourse to curb your right to smoke in places in which it affects them. If you wish to fuck big brother or me, that poses yet another impingement on my freedoms and I too would seek protection from the law.
Your desire to smoke fags and rape may indeed be problems that the rest of us will have to deal with - not even stepping into the areas of medical care and how much the pulmonary complications of smoking raises medical insurance costs and the excessive stress it has placed on the medical establishment.
so you see, the point I was trying to make is that this entire post should be read in a sarcastic and jaded tone. I don't really care if you smoke or are resentful towards your fellow man. I just saw an opportunity to twist your words and took it. Thank you for that opportunity and have a pleasant day. Peace and may tar/SCLC be with you.
These already exist in shopping malls - like to the entrance of a top deck parking lot secondary to weight constraints. Implementing them on the roads would likely be as easy.
I did read it. If you have a correction to make, I would be more than happy to hear it. My only point was that reducing the energy of activation can save energy cost. How is this incorrect?
but encryption is also how they keep people from getting channels they aren't paying for. I have no problem with them encrypting the channels. What would be better is if they had a standard algorithm for encryption, so it can be implemented by third parties. That way they can provide you with the key after you pay for it. Still a fair deal since you can then implement your own software. They assure that casual piracy is eliminated and thus protect their basic interests. Unless you want to eliminate the cable system as it exists now, a means to protect premium and pay-per-view channels must be in place. I honestly think, the high revenues for the movie industry are necessary to continue the production of truly spectacular movies. I know many here disagree, but I assure you that without potential for enormous profits, only an eccentric billionaire would fund the tens of millions used to make some of the great movies (yes I know there are great movies made for a lot less, but come-on - there is an appeal to movies like star wars and die hard). I think its the abuse of the copyright term that is the main problem. The last extension to copyright was almost as good as making copyright indefinite and is an insult to the required time limit clause on copyrights.