Not really, as these guys don't "work on stories", they just accept submitted stories and click "yes let this through" or "no don't let this through". It's not like this takes the 1:40+ hours of spacing between the stories.
I'm studying for a PhD in physics, and part of the reason I'm doing that is for answers to those type of questions. I figured someone would eventually tell me or show me how to figure it out, but really... not a lot of people know this. For all the stuff we do know, you'd be surprised at the stuff we don't.
Damn straight. Still, what you know after a physics degree is a damn sight better than before:-)
NO. The line goes through one of the points, so effectively you just have one line and one point, as the point that represents the position of the orbitting body is "absorbed" in the vector/line that represents the body's velocity.
First feature from their site's "Features" section: Selection margin with line numbers.
JCreator gives you the option of viewing line numbers in the selection margin.
When the feature list starts with this, I start to get worried. Looking at the rest I see that was justified. There is no mention of refactoring tools, and though of course I can't really comment since I haven't used JCreator, from the feature list it seems very similar to Gel, which is also free and windows-only.
The idea of an IDE is not just a nice Java-oriented editor. You're right to switch from vi to JCreator and not to Eclipse or NetBeans, cause those are far more than editors. I hate the way Eclipse is so slow and unresponsive compared to my good old KDE apps, but "as-you-write" compilation, the refactoring tools, JUnit tests integration, seamless and easy integration of jars for code-completion even if you don't have their sources, etc... all these make IDE's come out miles ahead of straight editors or "editors+IDE-like-frills".
I'm just waiting for the time when I have a faster computer so that Eclipse runs a bit more smoothly (P3 550 sucks), but I've tried many other methods and proper IDEs are definitely tops.
You live in a dreamworld mate. The universities will bend over and take it in the arse, rather than risk a lawsuit. Especially if they're public-funded. They might let things happen as long as it's not something public that anyone is aware of, but as soon as there's the slightest whiff of a lawsuit coming their way, they'll shut it all down pronto.
I speak from experience. In Oxford we had this great Gnutella clone called OxTella - ran on the 100Mbit/10Mbit LAN, so it was damn fast and good, and across all of Oxford. Then the RIAA sent a letter about some AIM file sharing to one of the colleges, some idiotic IT college officer sent out a mail to the entire college about it instead of keeping quiet and the next issue of the college newspaper had a big headline about it, and man, you never saw hundreds of nodes go down faster.
The universities are purveyors of education, not filesharing. They won't jeopardise the first to provide the latter.
It's not java based, so you either have to go through no end of hassle to make it work on your windows box, or get used to "one editor for *nix, one editor for *blows".
JEdit, on the other hand, runs fine and exactly identically on both linux and winblows. No need to get used to having one set of feature under one OS and another under the other.
How the hell does the above answer the parent's question? Man, you moderator people really ARE on crack. Of fucking course all orbits are planar, and you don't need Kepler's frickin' laws to prove it, just the fact that the only data defined in a planetary orbit are a point (center) and a vector (the velocity of the object) attached to the second point. All you can define with a point and a line in 3d space is a plane, hence orbits have to be planar.
But the parent was asking how come ALL the planets are in the same plane, completely different question. If there's any sane mods out there, mod the parent down and mod my reply (below) up!
Otherwise I think I will completely lose faith in any sort of/. moderation... i mean, wtf, if that's how ppl mod other stuff (where I don't know much about the subject) then it's fucking useless! Disinformation++!
Q1: It does, but it's a 4-dimensional sphere... little or nothing to do with a 3D sphere.
Q2: The planets formed from a great big cloud of gas (a protostar) which also formed the sun. After the sun started 'emitting', there was still some leftovers. They turned into the planets. Now due to the facts that a) there's some residual magnetic field lines due to some other objects around the condensing protostar and b) it's easier to move without crossing magnetic field lines than to cross them (ie costs less energy) the circular motion in the direction that crosses field lines died down whereas the motion in the direction that doesn't cross field lines stayed. So that turned a ball of gas into a flattened disc of gas. Then the planets formed. That's why they're all in the same plane, more or less. See "Thin Accretion Discs" in your favourite physics library for more advanced info.
See This Comment just above for the intro, but basically it could be that we just happen to be in a region of spacetime where there's only matter. Given that according to Inflation theory the visible universe is about as big compared to the "total" universe as an atom is compared to the visible universe, that leaves plenty of potential for antimatter elsewhere.
Umm... o_O... well, that's what I call "security by obfuscation":-) (no offense meant).
Simpler explanation for the people who want to understand it: (;-))
The universe started as a (quasi-)infinitely dense point that expanded VERY fast. For a comparatively long time, the matter in the universe was opaque to the photons that bounced around it. So photons kept on being absorbed and re-emitted by electrons and such. While this was happening, the universe was expanding, and thus cooling. So the photons, as they kept on being absorbed and re-emitted, cooled with it. Then at one point the universe suddenly (ie not gradually) became mostly transparent to the photons (I believe it was when hydrogen formed but my memory is flaky here). That's what we call "decoupling" time in cosmology.
Now after this, the photons kept on cooling due to the expansion of the universe, while the matter arranged itself in various heat-generating systems such as stars and so cooled off in a much more complex and separate way. So those photons kept on bouncing around the universe, and as the universe expanded their wavelength dropped (because space itself expanded). So now they're really cold, but they're still everywhere. What they provide is a snapshot of that "decoupling" time, of what the universe looked like back then.
So historically, at first it was a big discovery and really surprising that the CMB was uniform - and that strongly supported the Big Bang theory. Next they discovered what is referred to as "anisotropies", ie differences in the CMB depending on where you look. First there's a big "dipole anisotropy", which is due to the motion of the Earth with respect to the "surface of decoupling" (ie the big big sphere which surrounds us at some 13 billion light years away, which is where the CMB we see now comes from). Then there's all sorts of other "powers" of the anisotropies, so that they go down to a very tiny level.
Now if the universe was totally symmetric about the Big Bang, there wouldn't be anisotropies, either in the CMB or in the matter we see around us. In fact there wouldn't be clusters of galaxies, or galaxies, or planets or anything - just a great uniform mass of something (most likely hydrogen). What the anisotropies tell us is that the universe didn't just expand symmetrically after the Big Bang. So this begs the question: why not? What caused the anisotropies?
That's when you get into fairly advanced theories like Inflation Theory, which explains the anisotropies in terms of a super-super-super-super fast expansion (we're talking about growing by a factor of 10^24 in about 10^-15 seconds... that's FAST++ ok?). According to Inflation Theory, then, the anisotropies (and the fact that they're pretty uniformly distributed and of all shapes and sizes) would be explained because as the universe expanded (FAST++) particles were still appearing spontaneously everywhere because of all the tension of spacetime, and as that was totally random AND discrete, they *grew* into the galaxies and stuff we see.
Note that according to Inflation Theory, afai understood it, the visible universe (15 billion light years of it around us) is a tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of the actual *existing* universe, which we'll never be able to reach because the expansion of the universe is accelerating, as highlighted in a previous/. article.
Well, If they manage to break into the computer systems rooms and install taps on the wires unnoticed, then you can't trust your machines either, so encrypting is useless (they could replace your programs on the hard drives with trojaned copies that send a copy to them!!! omg!).
I'm not an expert on this, but as far as I know there shouldn't be that much difference between these alternatives, except in terms of practical functionality and hassle factor. So depending on your application you should just pick whichever one of these is easier for you to use. Otherwise, Transport Layer Security is a fairly standard thing and I doubt that one of those methods is particularly more vulnerable (or less) or more efficient (or less) than the others. SSL is great, for instance - just self-approve your certificates (and maybe auto-regenerate them every X weeks).
An ssh tunnel does things well nicely as well, and is probably the simplest of the simple ways of implementing this. Assuming you're writing in Java, there's a couple of ssh java libs on freshmeat which you can use to automatically set up the tunnel, et voila - access the port as if it was on the local server, and it all gets tunneled out securely.
As for the value of encrypting everything, I don't see how it can ever be a bad idea unless you're running this on your LAN at home:-) Also, if you're going to be sending masses of data across a fast connection (eg transferring a div-x or something) then it's probably fairly useless to go and encrypt all that, unless you've got a particular reason to be worried about someone snooping on your pr0n download:-)
Yeah, where the hell did that "Funny" modding come from? lol...
Ok, I'm not denying it won't be useful in some situations, but I live in Switzerland and I go skiing a lot, and hear a lot of news about skiing and every once in a while we hear about some skiiers or snowboarders or whatever dying in an avalanche, and it's almost always one that they started. There was a few years back one which started right next to a slope and actually took out a few skiiers on a proper slope and that was big news (fair enough, you'd expect slopes to be checked for these risks and closed when the risks are too high). But the vast majority are about people who were skiing or boarding off-piste in avalanche-prone weather conditions (snowed recently, etc) and started an avalanche under their own feet.
Now a system to protect these people from these avalanches would be well worth it. Most people who go ski on this type of off-piste are fairly aware of the risks, they just think it's worth the risk. I reckon they should popularize the James Bond inflating jackets... that could save lives:-)
Most die from avalanches which they themselves start. I don't see how a "beep beep beep - you've just started an avalanche under your own feet" is going to help much.
So? You really haven't understood the saying, are you. "physical life" is interchanged with security, not libery:
"Anyone who trades liberty for physical life deserves neither liberty nor physical life."
Sounds a bit harsh when put like that but given that the probabilities that you'll be directly hurt by terrorist action is about the same as the prob that you'll be hit by a meteorite, I think it's fair enough to throw out that "physical life" term and put back "security", as that's what the argument is really about - not your life at gunpoint right now, but your security in general.
Yeah, shame they don't add just the lightweight cross-fader to winamp2. I know there's plugins that do this for winamp2, but the ones I tried tend to make winamp2 suddenly more bloated and nasty (cause they have to work by buffering the next song, so you don't get the ability to switch between songs quickly and skip ahead easily anymore because there's a five-second delay - and if you decrease the delay the fades aren't so nice anymore).
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, as these guys don't "work on stories", they just accept submitted stories and click "yes let this through" or "no don't let this through". It's not like this takes the 1:40+ hours of spacing between the stories.
:-)
So no excuse really
Daniel
Just for you, I'll take them all. Can you wrap them?
Daniel
I'm studying for a PhD in physics, and part of the reason I'm doing that is for answers to those type of questions. I figured someone would eventually tell me or show me how to figure it out, but really... not a lot of people know this. For all the stuff we do know, you'd be surprised at the stuff we don't.
:-)
Damn straight. Still, what you know after a physics degree is a damn sight better than before
Daniel
NO. The line goes through one of the points, so effectively you just have one line and one point, as the point that represents the position of the orbitting body is "absorbed" in the vector/line that represents the body's velocity.
Daniel
First feature from their site's "Features" section:
Selection margin with line numbers. JCreator gives you the option of viewing line numbers in the selection margin.
When the feature list starts with this, I start to get worried. Looking at the rest I see that was justified. There is no mention of refactoring tools, and though of course I can't really comment since I haven't used JCreator, from the feature list it seems very similar to Gel, which is also free and windows-only.
The idea of an IDE is not just a nice Java-oriented editor. You're right to switch from vi to JCreator and not to Eclipse or NetBeans, cause those are far more than editors. I hate the way Eclipse is so slow and unresponsive compared to my good old KDE apps, but "as-you-write" compilation, the refactoring tools, JUnit tests integration, seamless and easy integration of jars for code-completion even if you don't have their sources, etc... all these make IDE's come out miles ahead of straight editors or "editors+IDE-like-frills".
I'm just waiting for the time when I have a faster computer so that Eclipse runs a bit more smoothly (P3 550 sucks), but I've tried many other methods and proper IDEs are definitely tops.
Daniel
You live in a dreamworld mate. The universities will bend over and take it in the arse, rather than risk a lawsuit. Especially if they're public-funded. They might let things happen as long as it's not something public that anyone is aware of, but as soon as there's the slightest whiff of a lawsuit coming their way, they'll shut it all down pronto.
I speak from experience. In Oxford we had this great Gnutella clone called OxTella - ran on the 100Mbit/10Mbit LAN, so it was damn fast and good, and across all of Oxford. Then the RIAA sent a letter about some AIM file sharing to one of the colleges, some idiotic IT college officer sent out a mail to the entire college about it instead of keeping quiet and the next issue of the college newspaper had a big headline about it, and man, you never saw hundreds of nodes go down faster.
The universities are purveyors of education, not filesharing. They won't jeopardise the first to provide the latter.
Daniel
It's not java based, so you either have to go through no end of hassle to make it work on your windows box, or get used to "one editor for *nix, one editor for *blows".
JEdit, on the other hand, runs fine and exactly identically on both linux and winblows. No need to get used to having one set of feature under one OS and another under the other.
Daniel
You should really read the tutorial before spouting off what you think you know.
I don't think I know it, I know it. I've just finished a physics degree and my very last exam was a minor option paper on cosmology.
Daniel
How the hell does the above answer the parent's question? Man, you moderator people really ARE on crack. Of fucking course all orbits are planar, and you don't need Kepler's frickin' laws to prove it, just the fact that the only data defined in a planetary orbit are a point (center) and a vector (the velocity of the object) attached to the second point. All you can define with a point and a line in 3d space is a plane, hence orbits have to be planar.
/. moderation... i mean, wtf, if that's how ppl mod other stuff (where I don't know much about the subject) then it's fucking useless! Disinformation++!
But the parent was asking how come ALL the planets are in the same plane, completely different question. If there's any sane mods out there, mod the parent down and mod my reply (below) up!
Otherwise I think I will completely lose faith in any sort of
Daniel
Q1: It does, but it's a 4-dimensional sphere... little or nothing to do with a 3D sphere.
Q2: The planets formed from a great big cloud of gas (a protostar) which also formed the sun. After the sun started 'emitting', there was still some leftovers. They turned into the planets. Now due to the facts that a) there's some residual magnetic field lines due to some other objects around the condensing protostar and b) it's easier to move without crossing magnetic field lines than to cross them (ie costs less energy) the circular motion in the direction that crosses field lines died down whereas the motion in the direction that doesn't cross field lines stayed. So that turned a ball of gas into a flattened disc of gas. Then the planets formed. That's why they're all in the same plane, more or less. See "Thin Accretion Discs" in your favourite physics library for more advanced info.
Daniel
See This Comment just above for the intro, but basically it could be that we just happen to be in a region of spacetime where there's only matter. Given that according to Inflation theory the visible universe is about as big compared to the "total" universe as an atom is compared to the visible universe, that leaves plenty of potential for antimatter elsewhere.
Daniel
Umm... o_O... well, that's what I call "security by obfuscation" :-) (no offense meant).
/. article.
Simpler explanation for the people who want to understand it: (;-))
The universe started as a (quasi-)infinitely dense point that expanded VERY fast. For a comparatively long time, the matter in the universe was opaque to the photons that bounced around it. So photons kept on being absorbed and re-emitted by electrons and such. While this was happening, the universe was expanding, and thus cooling. So the photons, as they kept on being absorbed and re-emitted, cooled with it. Then at one point the universe suddenly (ie not gradually) became mostly transparent to the photons (I believe it was when hydrogen formed but my memory is flaky here). That's what we call "decoupling" time in cosmology.
Now after this, the photons kept on cooling due to the expansion of the universe, while the matter arranged itself in various heat-generating systems such as stars and so cooled off in a much more complex and separate way. So those photons kept on bouncing around the universe, and as the universe expanded their wavelength dropped (because space itself expanded). So now they're really cold, but they're still everywhere. What they provide is a snapshot of that "decoupling" time, of what the universe looked like back then.
So historically, at first it was a big discovery and really surprising that the CMB was uniform - and that strongly supported the Big Bang theory. Next they discovered what is referred to as "anisotropies", ie differences in the CMB depending on where you look. First there's a big "dipole anisotropy", which is due to the motion of the Earth with respect to the "surface of decoupling" (ie the big big sphere which surrounds us at some 13 billion light years away, which is where the CMB we see now comes from). Then there's all sorts of other "powers" of the anisotropies, so that they go down to a very tiny level.
Now if the universe was totally symmetric about the Big Bang, there wouldn't be anisotropies, either in the CMB or in the matter we see around us. In fact there wouldn't be clusters of galaxies, or galaxies, or planets or anything - just a great uniform mass of something (most likely hydrogen). What the anisotropies tell us is that the universe didn't just expand symmetrically after the Big Bang. So this begs the question: why not? What caused the anisotropies?
That's when you get into fairly advanced theories like Inflation Theory, which explains the anisotropies in terms of a super-super-super-super fast expansion (we're talking about growing by a factor of 10^24 in about 10^-15 seconds... that's FAST++ ok?). According to Inflation Theory, then, the anisotropies (and the fact that they're pretty uniformly distributed and of all shapes and sizes) would be explained because as the universe expanded (FAST++) particles were still appearing spontaneously everywhere because of all the tension of spacetime, and as that was totally random AND discrete, they *grew* into the galaxies and stuff we see.
Note that according to Inflation Theory, afai understood it, the visible universe (15 billion light years of it around us) is a tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of the actual *existing* universe, which we'll never be able to reach because the expansion of the universe is accelerating, as highlighted in a previous
Phew, hope this helps.
Daniel
It's better accuracy than the book value of "between 10 and 20 billion years"...!
:-) Glad to see the CMB agrees with me.
I always had a preference for the lower half, myself (ie 10-15bn).
Daniel
Well, If they manage to break into the computer systems rooms and install taps on the wires unnoticed, then you can't trust your machines either, so encrypting is useless (they could replace your programs on the hard drives with trojaned copies that send a copy to them!!! omg!).
:-P
Good dose of paranoia = good...
Mental illness paranoia = not so good...
Daniel
I'm not an expert on this, but as far as I know there shouldn't be that much difference between these alternatives, except in terms of practical functionality and hassle factor. So depending on your application you should just pick whichever one of these is easier for you to use. Otherwise, Transport Layer Security is a fairly standard thing and I doubt that one of those methods is particularly more vulnerable (or less) or more efficient (or less) than the others. SSL is great, for instance - just self-approve your certificates (and maybe auto-regenerate them every X weeks).
:-) Also, if you're going to be sending masses of data across a fast connection (eg transferring a div-x or something) then it's probably fairly useless to go and encrypt all that, unless you've got a particular reason to be worried about someone snooping on your pr0n download :-)
An ssh tunnel does things well nicely as well, and is probably the simplest of the simple ways of implementing this. Assuming you're writing in Java, there's a couple of ssh java libs on freshmeat which you can use to automatically set up the tunnel, et voila - access the port as if it was on the local server, and it all gets tunneled out securely.
As for the value of encrypting everything, I don't see how it can ever be a bad idea unless you're running this on your LAN at home
Daniel
Yeah, where the hell did that "Funny" modding come from? lol...
:-)
Ok, I'm not denying it won't be useful in some situations, but I live in Switzerland and I go skiing a lot, and hear a lot of news about skiing and every once in a while we hear about some skiiers or snowboarders or whatever dying in an avalanche, and it's almost always one that they started. There was a few years back one which started right next to a slope and actually took out a few skiiers on a proper slope and that was big news (fair enough, you'd expect slopes to be checked for these risks and closed when the risks are too high). But the vast majority are about people who were skiing or boarding off-piste in avalanche-prone weather conditions (snowed recently, etc) and started an avalanche under their own feet.
Now a system to protect these people from these avalanches would be well worth it. Most people who go ski on this type of off-piste are fairly aware of the risks, they just think it's worth the risk. I reckon they should popularize the James Bond inflating jackets... that could save lives
Daniel
...those on the slopes.
Most die from avalanches which they themselves start. I don't see how a "beep beep beep - you've just started an avalanche under your own feet" is going to help much.
Daniel
What's wrong with Macko then? Seems like the obvious choice.
:-)
Or even Mackamino
Daniel
s/are you/have you/
Daniel
So? You really haven't understood the saying, are you. "physical life" is interchanged with security, not libery:
"Anyone who trades liberty for physical life deserves neither liberty nor physical life."
Sounds a bit harsh when put like that but given that the probabilities that you'll be directly hurt by terrorist action is about the same as the prob that you'll be hit by a meteorite, I think it's fair enough to throw out that "physical life" term and put back "security", as that's what the argument is really about - not your life at gunpoint right now, but your security in general.
Daniel
The problem would then become how do you make the distinction between Viri (the plural of Man, "Vir") and Viri (the plural of Virus)...
Daniel
Yeah, shame they don't add just the lightweight cross-fader to winamp2. I know there's plugins that do this for winamp2, but the ones I tried tend to make winamp2 suddenly more bloated and nasty (cause they have to work by buffering the next song, so you don't get the ability to switch between songs quickly and skip ahead easily anymore because there's a five-second delay - and if you decrease the delay the fades aren't so nice anymore).
Daniel
Fair enough, though... if you're trying to make an improved Windows keyboard, you gotta have a Ctrl-Alt-Del button...
Daniel
- Rows (pardon me if this is not the correct english word, something like Sum[v=0,eternity] of 1/v!).
Series (and summation of series)?
Daniel
roflmao!!!
:-P
Take that switch ads
Daniel