for anyone who has taken enough physics and chemistry classes, or can read wikipedia, accessing the knowledge about how a nuclear weapon works is not any great feat. The hard part was accomplished by thousands of physicists and chemists in the late 30s and early 40s.
The HARD part as you mentioned is building the equipment required to gain the raw materials. Given how tyrannies such as Iran work, it's not manpower that is the problem, so they have access to thousands of people to do the work - the problem is building quality tooling capable of machining the equipment required to refine the fissionable material. They could build a crude device like "little boy" but Iran would take years to produce enough fissionable material for just ONE of those devices, and delivering that one would ensure their nation is turned into a sheet of glass. In order to do real harm they need many smaller, multi-megaton weapons AND the means to deliver them quickly and accurately. Without help from the USA (HA!), Israel (HA!), Russia (possibly. ..) or China (more likely but not probable given how devastating the response would be) they (Iran) are likely decades away from achieving their goals.
A netbook with a single Atom chip "just could not support the multitasking needs of students
Skype, youtube, and porn videos aren't really essential for studies,
and professionals," it said. So it set out to build its own. It modified Intel's 945 chipset to run the two processors, which took it about six months. The processors divide the workload, much like a dual-core processor does, the company said.
Okay, all kidding aside, I would like to know what's new here? These people were clever in modifying Intel's chipset to make SMP work, but they're acting like having two discrete processors is a new thing compared to multi-core processing. Again: multiple processors is not a new thing. It's downright ancient history in the world of microcomputing.
Contract Intel to produce a multi-core Atom processor - oops, it exists already. Check out the Atom 330. could have saved yourselves a ton of effort, reduced development costs, and remained within the scope of the design specs that Intel will actually support.
A lot of police cars have cameras already; all they need to prove is:
* failure to maintain control of the vehicle
* improper lane changes
* driving left of center
* failure to yield
* driving >10mph under the limit
* reckless driving
In the cases I see where someone is texting and is not capable of multitasking, they are violating MULTIPLE laws already. It's very easy to prove violations of those existing laws when the police cars have cameras on board. Texting laws are unnecessary. In fact, they're stupid.
Why?
Ban texting. What else is distracting? Surfing the web. Ban that. Watching youtube. Ban that. Reading a book. Ban that! Shaving. Ban that!
Why bother banning each individual activities when the existing laws suffice, if only states and municipalities quit using police officers as revenue clerks (i.e., speed limit enforcement for raising revenue, not increasing safety), drop speeding ticket quotas, and instead let them focus on actual safety issues? Then, this problem will be greatly reduced or even eliminated - without the need for additional laws.
What makes this REALLY stupid is a lot of states are starting to offer traffic reports via SMS messages. It's hypocrisy at its height. "Accident at columbia road" - OK so I know to get off before then and take Dot ave. Such laws would make state-endorsed use of texting illegal. So, the state would be conspiring to engage in a criminal act!:)
Hey Politicians, stuff like this is already illegal. Bear with me now:
If you cross the center line and plow into another car head on because you just *had* to reply to your friend's incoming text message, you could wind up killing people other than yourself.
Driving left of center is illegal (unless legally passing) in the United States. it is a citable offense. Why not enforce existing laws on the books? It will generate a lot of revenue and save lives, and people will learn on their second, third, etc. offenses that driving unsafely is not a good thing, regardless of the cause. The problem is not texting (or smoking or drinking or talking or gawking at that hot chick on the sidewalk); the problem is lousy driving. Here is what goes unenforced:
* Stopping at traffic signals ("california stops" are the norm)
* failure to yield (merging, changing lanes, breakdown lane travel, yield signs, roundabouts/rotaries, left turns, etc.)
* improper lane changes / using the highways as one's personal slalom course
* driving >10mph UNDER the limit
* failure to maintain control of the vehicle
* driving left of center
* running red lights (hint to massholes: if you're approaching a light and it has been red for two seconds, it means you might want to stop. Really! a red light doesn't mean stop after it has been red more than three seconds already. The amber/yellow signal already gave you a four-second warning)
There are countless charges which can be applied and stick in these cases, and if revenue clerks, er, I mean, traffic officers actually enforce safety laws, then crashes due to texting, smoking, reading books, applying makeup, cooking, getting a bj, or any other cockamamie nonsense people do while driving will be reduced because people will learn after getting fined hundreds for seemingly "minor" infractions and incurring huge insurance surcharges that maybe, maybe they might want to consider focusing on driving?
But no, that would entail officers doing their jobs and following the spirit of the law, not just acting as revenue clerks.
No texting-specific laws are required. Existing laws already cover the problem. Those laws are just going unenforced.
There is even more basic prior art that makes all of this an obvious implementation to those skilled in the field: chmod. chmod predates all digital cellphones.
This is bogus. When you buy an iPhone you generally pay full price. It's not subsidized so the carrier has no $(*&^ing business crippling the phone, and Apple has no business crippling it on behalf of the carrier. It's disgusting that Apple is using tethering as one of the major selling points of the iPhone (which is odd, since I can tether my ancient Samsung "Sync" without any problem - AND get more bandwidth through it!) and they cripple it with the OS 3.1 update. That is a bait-and-switch regardless of where you live.
Maybe in reaction to this Google can make Android even less restrictive. If they do that and really support their developers, and don't place all kinds of "duplication of native functionality" or "competes with Crapple" or "app is available elsewhere" restrictions that Apple and Palm have, they'll take over the market Apple is currently occupying. It'd be neat if they do that and then shut down Apple's access to google maps.
At times I have resorted to that but I make efforts not to. You might never have needed system restore, but eventually you will need it and regret nuking it.
How much is AT&T or $PROVIDER going to compensate me for the use of my bandwidth and electricity?
Are they going to respect any bandwidth caps I wish to impose, even when I do not disclose them beforehand and instead insist that I am allowing them UNLIMITED MESHING through my phone?
Are they going to agree to forbid the routing of packets from VPN and tethering through my phone, even though I will be heavily advertising those features as benefits of my providing a connection point in this mesh network?
If not, then make joining the mesh network opt-in, please! Fair is fair!
They're no better than Crapple. After the OS 3.1 update release removed tethering (even from officially unlocked phones) the issue has been getting hot on Apple's discussion boards. The thread keeps shrinking as people continue to discuss the issue. Apple is no better than Nintendo when it comes to not wanting to deal with user issues, but choose to instead censor them and ignore them.
Maybe Apple and Nintendo should merge. It's a marriage made in Hell!:)
One big problem I see is Nintendo is pushing out buggy software and then demanding $85 to fix it on out-of--warranty devices. Let me repeat: they are pushing defective software out, in effect vandalizing customers' product, and then requiring those customers pay $85 to fix their f$#&-up. How the hell is that not extortion?
See my other post on this subject. Antivirus XP (and variants) can be removed by hand but it's a tedious process. Malwarebytes removes it VERY easily though. With some Antivirus ($FOO) variants you do need to rename the Malwarebytes installer filename and then the executable filename but once you get the process launched it will fully automate the removal process. IMHO Malwarebytes is the very best ad/malware removal utility at the moment, with Spybot S&D and Superantispyware being tied for a very distant second.
Those are some of the best-written software out there. No, really! The first time I encountered the more advanced ones, almost malware detection/removal software could detect them, and none of them could remove that malware. It was on a system for a friend where reformat/reinstall was not really an option (would have taken more time to do that) so I dug into it. It took 26 hours to completely remove the crap from the system - it had strewn source files through the Windows and System Restore directories, had several hidden processes which monitored process killing and file deletion and would modify, recompile, and reinstall multiple copies of itself again.
A few weeks later Malwarebytes and Spybot S&D were updated and could easily remove any variant I've come across since then. The first time I hit it was a pain in the neck, then it was routine removal of it for a few weeks (a bit of time consuming but not nearly so much as the first time) and then it became a simple matter of renaming the malwarebytes and Spybot S&D installers, renaming the installed executable and running them. Ad-Aware couldn't detect them - and it's a shame. Ad-Aware is pretty much useless now. It seems that once they gained commercial viability they became complacent.
The douchebags who write that software aren't stupid. Malware is getting to be extremely well-designed and it's a damned shame those authors aren't doing more productive work.
I'll second that. Mine is a 6180DN and it is a wonderful machine. I suggest going with the DN so you get the duplex printing. You can add a duplexer to the base 6180N but it's cheaper to buy the DN up front. If you can afford it, spring for the MFP (scan/fax plus the IDE header is installed, enabling you to save print jobs) - I'm sorry I didn't get the MFP.:(
If you crack down on bad driving, the bad drivers will be barred from the roads. What's next: outlawing pushing a button to close a window while the car is moving? Banning changing of radio stations or even turning down the volume while driving? Disabling climate controls while the car is in motion? Banning manual transmissions? Banning the viewing of billboards? Why not just cite the infractions according to the existing laws, since the result of those behaviors is the real problem at stake, and is the whole intent of those laws in the first place?
You must be the product of public schools and obviously believe thought control is okay, and logic and personal responsibility are outmoded concepts.
I disagree. It should be every 3-5 years, or possibly even more frequent.
I'm sick of seeing elderly folk driving 15-25mph under the limit on the interstates. If you don't have the reaction time, you should not be driving, or should at least have a restriction preventing you from driving on the highways. I'm sick of elderly folk who don't change lanes. In fact I just posted this to facebook the other day:
the car is awesome but some old lady tried a quantum physics experiment to see if two solid objects can in fact occupy the same space at the same time. I know that theory never works out to practice when it comes to quantum mechanics so I had to driv...e up on the curb in order to not participate in the experiment so now I need a new wheel due to scratches
Someone asked me about my car. I posted about an incident where this old hag who wanted to change lanes decided to just cut over without looking. She just veered over into my lane. well, I was on the brakes, laying on the horn and pulling over. I had to drive over and up the curb to not get hit (I could only brake so hard because some masshole was tailgating me) so now my front-right wheel is scratched. She ended up finally pulling back over to the left lane so I pulled up next to her at a red light and I shouted "Why not look before changing lanes?" She said "I wanted to change lanes." I just shook my head and drove off. What the F&^#? That was exactly my point. If you want to change lanes, just look first, to make sure you're not going to kill anyone. I should have really called the police and filed a report, but I don't need THAT on my clean record,. I'll pay for the wheel out of pocket and just be even MORE defensive on the road.
My outlet for dealing with bad drivers is not tailgating, not braking hard or anything else. I drive sportscars and love to accelerate hard but when I am angry I just drive very gently and just grumble. I don't need to jockey for position, or display my anger. My roommate and best friend hates riding with me because I complain about the bad drivers around me all the time. I just mutter "douchebag" and shake my head, usually. She says that's road rage, but I disagree. It's frustrating having to share the road with people who have no regard for anyone else's safety, and calling the police does NOTHING to solve it. I've actually called in and reported drunk drivers before, and followed them giving the police updates on the location (in a couple of cases the drivers were scraping guardrails, etc) and in none of those times have police ever showed up. One time I reported minors drinking and driving (I got pissed they dumped a bunch of beer bottles in the parking lot at my office, so I jumped in my car and followed them). The police never respond so I never bother reporting bad driving any more. If the people are not speeders and not ticketable on a per-mph basis, the police just are not interested. If it's safety-related, not quota-and-revenue-related, they could not be bothered.
So, because it's dog-eat-dog, I'll just continue driving defensively. Want to jockey for position? I'll either just pull out of the way quickly and get the hell away from you, or just wait for you to go ahead. If you're tailgating me, I'll put my fog lights on and hit the gas, confusing the hell out of you, causing you to either back off or move to the left and go around. I'm generally keeping up with traffic or going 5mph over on the highway, so I won't be annoying reasonable drivers and won't be attracting revenue officers. I drive nice cars and just want to get from point A to point B without incident caused by bad drivers.
The problems are multiple though:
* the driving test is LITERALLY a drive around the block here. It really should consist of highway driving, rural driving, and rush-hour driving through the city - preferably on a route you don't know so you can learn to deal with REAL distractions such as trying to find street signs, obeying badly-placed traffic lights, obeying tree-hidden speed limit
Slashdot Mirror
for anyone who has taken enough physics and chemistry classes, or can read wikipedia, accessing the knowledge about how a nuclear weapon works is not any great feat. The hard part was accomplished by thousands of physicists and chemists in the late 30s and early 40s.
The HARD part as you mentioned is building the equipment required to gain the raw materials. Given how tyrannies such as Iran work, it's not manpower that is the problem, so they have access to thousands of people to do the work - the problem is building quality tooling capable of machining the equipment required to refine the fissionable material. They could build a crude device like "little boy" but Iran would take years to produce enough fissionable material for just ONE of those devices, and delivering that one would ensure their nation is turned into a sheet of glass. In order to do real harm they need many smaller, multi-megaton weapons AND the means to deliver them quickly and accurately. Without help from the USA (HA!), Israel (HA!), Russia (possibly. . .) or China (more likely but not probable given how devastating the response would be) they (Iran) are likely decades away from achieving their goals.
Lots of devices will never get 64-bit drivers. I doubt Singer will ever release 64-bit drivers for their embroidery machines, for example.
Riiiight. Lots of devices will never get 64-bit drivers.
Skype, youtube, and porn videos aren't really essential for studies,
Okay, all kidding aside, I would like to know what's new here? These people were clever in modifying Intel's chipset to make SMP work, but they're acting like having two discrete processors is a new thing compared to multi-core processing. Again: multiple processors is not a new thing. It's downright ancient history in the world of microcomputing.
Contract Intel to produce a multi-core Atom processor - oops, it exists already. Check out the Atom 330. could have saved yourselves a ton of effort, reduced development costs, and remained within the scope of the design specs that Intel will actually support.
Kudos for the neat hack though!
Even more surprising, no one is complaining about kdawson!
A lot of police cars have cameras already; all they need to prove is:
* failure to maintain control of the vehicle
* improper lane changes
* driving left of center
* failure to yield
* driving >10mph under the limit
* reckless driving
In the cases I see where someone is texting and is not capable of multitasking, they are violating MULTIPLE laws already. It's very easy to prove violations of those existing laws when the police cars have cameras on board. Texting laws are unnecessary. In fact, they're stupid.
Why?
Ban texting. What else is distracting? Surfing the web. Ban that. Watching youtube. Ban that. Reading a book. Ban that! Shaving. Ban that!
Why bother banning each individual activities when the existing laws suffice, if only states and municipalities quit using police officers as revenue clerks (i.e., speed limit enforcement for raising revenue, not increasing safety), drop speeding ticket quotas, and instead let them focus on actual safety issues? Then, this problem will be greatly reduced or even eliminated - without the need for additional laws.
What makes this REALLY stupid is a lot of states are starting to offer traffic reports via SMS messages. It's hypocrisy at its height. "Accident at columbia road" - OK so I know to get off before then and take Dot ave. Such laws would make state-endorsed use of texting illegal. So, the state would be conspiring to engage in a criminal act! :)
Hey Politicians, stuff like this is already illegal. Bear with me now:
Driving left of center is illegal (unless legally passing) in the United States. it is a citable offense. Why not enforce existing laws on the books? It will generate a lot of revenue and save lives, and people will learn on their second, third, etc. offenses that driving unsafely is not a good thing, regardless of the cause. The problem is not texting (or smoking or drinking or talking or gawking at that hot chick on the sidewalk); the problem is lousy driving. Here is what goes unenforced:
* Stopping at traffic signals ("california stops" are the norm)
* failure to yield (merging, changing lanes, breakdown lane travel, yield signs, roundabouts/rotaries, left turns, etc.)
* improper lane changes / using the highways as one's personal slalom course
* driving >10mph UNDER the limit
* failure to maintain control of the vehicle
* driving left of center
* running red lights (hint to massholes: if you're approaching a light and it has been red for two seconds, it means you might want to stop. Really! a red light doesn't mean stop after it has been red more than three seconds already. The amber/yellow signal already gave you a four-second warning)
There are countless charges which can be applied and stick in these cases, and if revenue clerks, er, I mean, traffic officers actually enforce safety laws, then crashes due to texting, smoking, reading books, applying makeup, cooking, getting a bj, or any other cockamamie nonsense people do while driving will be reduced because people will learn after getting fined hundreds for seemingly "minor" infractions and incurring huge insurance surcharges that maybe, maybe they might want to consider focusing on driving?
But no, that would entail officers doing their jobs and following the spirit of the law, not just acting as revenue clerks.
No texting-specific laws are required. Existing laws already cover the problem. Those laws are just going unenforced.
Does this mean that politicians will no longer legislate spending which exceeds revenue, and will cut spending rather than increase taxes?
There is even more basic prior art that makes all of this an obvious implementation to those skilled in the field: chmod. chmod predates all digital cellphones.
Apple, this is chmod. chmod, this is Apple. Apple, chmod's nickname in this context is "prior art"
Obvious to those skilled in the trade, not novel and therefore not patentable - at least not by law. Of course the USPTO will rubber stamp it.
This is bogus. When you buy an iPhone you generally pay full price. It's not subsidized so the carrier has no $(*&^ing business crippling the phone, and Apple has no business crippling it on behalf of the carrier. It's disgusting that Apple is using tethering as one of the major selling points of the iPhone (which is odd, since I can tether my ancient Samsung "Sync" without any problem - AND get more bandwidth through it!) and they cripple it with the OS 3.1 update. That is a bait-and-switch regardless of where you live.
Maybe in reaction to this Google can make Android even less restrictive. If they do that and really support their developers, and don't place all kinds of "duplication of native functionality" or "competes with Crapple" or "app is available elsewhere" restrictions that Apple and Palm have, they'll take over the market Apple is currently occupying. It'd be neat if they do that and then shut down Apple's access to google maps.
Oh, how I wish that software existed to block such ads - perhaps in the form of a browser plugin or extension. If only such software existed. Oh well. ;)
If he did, they'd stream him Mountain Dew and Cheetos adverts.
And yet, even then Windows by itself will have a larger footprint than an entire FULL install of your average Linux distro.
At times I have resorted to that but I make efforts not to. You might never have needed system restore, but eventually you will need it and regret nuking it.
How much is AT&T or $PROVIDER going to compensate me for the use of my bandwidth and electricity?
Are they going to respect any bandwidth caps I wish to impose, even when I do not disclose them beforehand and instead insist that I am allowing them UNLIMITED MESHING through my phone?
Are they going to agree to forbid the routing of packets from VPN and tethering through my phone, even though I will be heavily advertising those features as benefits of my providing a connection point in this mesh network?
If not, then make joining the mesh network opt-in, please! Fair is fair!
The ones that are truly lovely are the ones that patch the Windows Restore directory tree with binaries and source. Those are really nasty!
Much like the myCube, that light confirms that it's off. ;)
They're no better than Crapple. After the OS 3.1 update release removed tethering (even from officially unlocked phones) the issue has been getting hot on Apple's discussion boards. The thread keeps shrinking as people continue to discuss the issue. Apple is no better than Nintendo when it comes to not wanting to deal with user issues, but choose to instead censor them and ignore them.
Maybe Apple and Nintendo should merge. It's a marriage made in Hell! :)
One big problem I see is Nintendo is pushing out buggy software and then demanding $85 to fix it on out-of--warranty devices. Let me repeat: they are pushing defective software out, in effect vandalizing customers' product, and then requiring those customers pay $85 to fix their f$#&-up. How the hell is that not extortion?
See my other post on this subject. Antivirus XP (and variants) can be removed by hand but it's a tedious process. Malwarebytes removes it VERY easily though. With some Antivirus ($FOO) variants you do need to rename the Malwarebytes installer filename and then the executable filename but once you get the process launched it will fully automate the removal process. IMHO Malwarebytes is the very best ad/malware removal utility at the moment, with Spybot S&D and Superantispyware being tied for a very distant second.
Those are some of the best-written software out there. No, really! The first time I encountered the more advanced ones, almost malware detection/removal software could detect them, and none of them could remove that malware. It was on a system for a friend where reformat/reinstall was not really an option (would have taken more time to do that) so I dug into it. It took 26 hours to completely remove the crap from the system - it had strewn source files through the Windows and System Restore directories, had several hidden processes which monitored process killing and file deletion and would modify, recompile, and reinstall multiple copies of itself again.
A few weeks later Malwarebytes and Spybot S&D were updated and could easily remove any variant I've come across since then. The first time I hit it was a pain in the neck, then it was routine removal of it for a few weeks (a bit of time consuming but not nearly so much as the first time) and then it became a simple matter of renaming the malwarebytes and Spybot S&D installers, renaming the installed executable and running them. Ad-Aware couldn't detect them - and it's a shame. Ad-Aware is pretty much useless now. It seems that once they gained commercial viability they became complacent.
The douchebags who write that software aren't stupid. Malware is getting to be extremely well-designed and it's a damned shame those authors aren't doing more productive work.
I'll second that. Mine is a 6180DN and it is a wonderful machine. I suggest going with the DN so you get the duplex printing. You can add a duplexer to the base 6180N but it's cheaper to buy the DN up front. If you can afford it, spring for the MFP (scan/fax plus the IDE header is installed, enabling you to save print jobs) - I'm sorry I didn't get the MFP. :(
So, what, cosmic rays are Yugos? Geo Metros? Mini Coopers? Help us out here!
If you crack down on bad driving, the bad drivers will be barred from the roads. What's next: outlawing pushing a button to close a window while the car is moving? Banning changing of radio stations or even turning down the volume while driving? Disabling climate controls while the car is in motion? Banning manual transmissions? Banning the viewing of billboards? Why not just cite the infractions according to the existing laws, since the result of those behaviors is the real problem at stake, and is the whole intent of those laws in the first place?
You must be the product of public schools and obviously believe thought control is okay, and logic and personal responsibility are outmoded concepts.
I disagree. It should be every 3-5 years, or possibly even more frequent.
I'm sick of seeing elderly folk driving 15-25mph under the limit on the interstates. If you don't have the reaction time, you should not be driving, or should at least have a restriction preventing you from driving on the highways. I'm sick of elderly folk who don't change lanes. In fact I just posted this to facebook the other day:
the car is awesome but some old lady tried a quantum physics experiment to see if two solid objects can in fact occupy the same space at the same time. I know that theory never works out to practice when it comes to quantum mechanics so I had to driv...e up on the curb in order to not participate in the experiment so now I need a new wheel due to scratches
Someone asked me about my car. I posted about an incident where this old hag who wanted to change lanes decided to just cut over without looking. She just veered over into my lane. well, I was on the brakes, laying on the horn and pulling over. I had to drive over and up the curb to not get hit (I could only brake so hard because some masshole was tailgating me) so now my front-right wheel is scratched. She ended up finally pulling back over to the left lane so I pulled up next to her at a red light and I shouted "Why not look before changing lanes?" She said "I wanted to change lanes." I just shook my head and drove off. What the F&^#? That was exactly my point. If you want to change lanes, just look first, to make sure you're not going to kill anyone. I should have really called the police and filed a report, but I don't need THAT on my clean record,. I'll pay for the wheel out of pocket and just be even MORE defensive on the road.
My outlet for dealing with bad drivers is not tailgating, not braking hard or anything else. I drive sportscars and love to accelerate hard but when I am angry I just drive very gently and just grumble. I don't need to jockey for position, or display my anger. My roommate and best friend hates riding with me because I complain about the bad drivers around me all the time. I just mutter "douchebag" and shake my head, usually. She says that's road rage, but I disagree. It's frustrating having to share the road with people who have no regard for anyone else's safety, and calling the police does NOTHING to solve it. I've actually called in and reported drunk drivers before, and followed them giving the police updates on the location (in a couple of cases the drivers were scraping guardrails, etc) and in none of those times have police ever showed up. One time I reported minors drinking and driving (I got pissed they dumped a bunch of beer bottles in the parking lot at my office, so I jumped in my car and followed them). The police never respond so I never bother reporting bad driving any more. If the people are not speeders and not ticketable on a per-mph basis, the police just are not interested. If it's safety-related, not quota-and-revenue-related, they could not be bothered.
So, because it's dog-eat-dog, I'll just continue driving defensively. Want to jockey for position? I'll either just pull out of the way quickly and get the hell away from you, or just wait for you to go ahead. If you're tailgating me, I'll put my fog lights on and hit the gas, confusing the hell out of you, causing you to either back off or move to the left and go around. I'm generally keeping up with traffic or going 5mph over on the highway, so I won't be annoying reasonable drivers and won't be attracting revenue officers. I drive nice cars and just want to get from point A to point B without incident caused by bad drivers.
The problems are multiple though:
* the driving test is LITERALLY a drive around the block here. It really should consist of highway driving, rural driving, and rush-hour driving through the city - preferably on a route you don't know so you can learn to deal with REAL distractions such as trying to find street signs, obeying badly-placed traffic lights, obeying tree-hidden speed limit