Here's the thing: I find it difficult to believe that technical people would categorize hobbies in such a way that would lob everything electronic into "computers", and then ask "what else do you do?". That kind of thinking seems to breed the idea that programmers, IT people, and people who do pure computer science are all the same.
Except in every way, yes, exactly. Oil is a fixed resource whereas bandwidth is by definition a rate; we need to consume oil at a constant rate simply to keep the system going, but sustained bandwidth is easy. Oil gets harder and harder to extract the more we consume, but we can always add more bandwidth without being penalized by how much we already have.
I can understand not RTFAing, and in rare cases the summary, but seriously, the headline? This is an article refuting that claim, providing arguments (and quantitative evidence to support them) against the exaflood scaremongering.
But perhaps your right - slashdot should only post the outrageous corporate propaganda articles, and ignore the writings that challenge such FUD, leaving each individual to judge BS in isolation.
It's this kind of reasoning, that higher price must be an indication of quality, that led to my university increasing tuition by 7% in one year, to "maintain parity" with ivy league schools.
Indeed. I especially liked the transition from the beginning of the letter, where he responded with feigned interest and dozens of requests for more information, to the middle where he gave a detailed technical justification for his design, to the end where he became downright threatening to Monster, and rightly so. Here is a man who knows how to scare off a litigation troll.
Also, notice how he replied on the last day of the two week period Monster's lawyers gave him. This, combined with the number of requests for clarification he made, demonstrates that he will ensure any actual court proceedings drag on for as long as possible.
There is of course the other major point, that it is absolutely ridiculous how social security numbers are treated as sensitive information and required information in so many unrelated contexts. What idiot thought up the system of authenticating a person for credit using the same token that hundreds of other organizations use to identify that person?
Maybe in a hundred years we'll have registries of public keys and we'll all have private SS keys that are never shared with your credit card company, bank, and (if we were really lucky) government.
I miss the days when the word terrorist made people think of movies like Air Force One or Die Hard. I miss it being associated with ordinary secular goals instead of just religious extremism.
I'd like to see this OSS terrorist face the CEO of Nerv (from that other forgettable hacker movie a few years back).
(Sidenote: I hate the new discussion system. One false keypress and I lose my post, whereas the old form saves text in my browser's cache.)
Nullification is the idea that the sovereignty of the central government is subordinate to that of the states. Under this doctrine, a state could simply refuse to enforce a federal mandate if it deemed it to be unconstitutional, Supreme Court be damned. I believe it was really only tested prior to the Civil War with regards to slavery. In any case, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were both designed to reserve significant powers for the states, but in the end it doesn't even resemble what we have today.
It just seems to me that maintaining the possibility of armed violence against the government as a means of change or protection, is an unfeasible anachronism. I simply don't accept a weapon as a way to fight federal power in this nation. I'm not saying this was always true, just that it no longer makes sense.
Another point I want to make - There's a sig somewhere on slashdot that reads "What part of 'well-organized militia don't you understand?". Since your constitutional right to bear arms was designed to be limited to locally organized groups and not individuals, and since ever since the Civil War it has been established that secession (and nullification?) is not valid, what legal purpose does this amendment even serve?
Unless you have a WMD handy, there's nothing you personally are going to be able to do against the armed forces, but there's plenty you can do against individuals. I suppose you could commit an assassination too if you really wanted to. But I see I misjudged the severity of your stance - you actually expect to keep handy the possibility of another civil war. I suppose that's just not what I mean when I say fight the government.
As for Jefferson, I never claimed to have read his mind, nor was I seriously suggesting the army would drop a nuke on your house instead of arresting you, but I too can use scary bold text to point out how you totally misunderstood my post.
I hardly think any arms you are capable of bearing can pose even the slightest threat to your government, but I'm sure they're great for threatening your fellow citizens. Jefferson didn't have nukes.
I also don't think the "government is supposed to fear the citizens" is supposed to mean that politicians are literally afraid of being murdered by disgruntled tax payers.
I especially appreciated his line about dolling out patriotic savage beatings to suspects in lue of interrogation. Originally I enjoyed those kinds of dramatic scenes, but I'm a lot more afraid of them now that people seem to accept them as appropriate responses.
Your hasty disclaimer - that your relevant, mild, and ordinary hypothetical is indeed just a hypothetical - speaks volumes towards your fear of your own government.
I would recommend neither qualifying nor apologizing for such words. Don't let them take away your right of expression by censoring yourself for them. Instead, embrace your words and defend the strength of your feelings with an indignant fury.
That was the first time I've remembered kinematics in a long time. Let's see, with 35 mph (16 m/s) decelerated to 0 over 69 ft (21 m), assuming a constant break force, that's a = -6 m/s^2, yielding a stopping time of around t = 2.5 s.
At 40 ft (12 m), we'll be going 24 mph (11 m/s), as calculated both by vf^2 - vi^2 = 2ax, and by the fact that our given distance is about half of what we needed so we'll be about a factor of sqrt(2) slower then.
I did these calculations attempting to debunk your killing-the-baby scenario with the supplied numbers, but I think 24 mph into the other guy's door is enough for fatality.
But now we're back to assuming that the camera and light have been set up in a lawful configuration, and this article is about deception by the city for the purpose of triggering more violations.
I'm surprised at the number of people recommending this kind of action on slashdot, because I would've assumed that modifying your car or employing a device with the sole aim of thwarting traffic law enforcement equipment would be outlawed by any state that cared to employ traffic light cameras in the first place. Is this not the case?
I thought that parenthetical was inserted by the blogger, but I checked the PDF and it's actually in there! We've gotten to the point where even officers of the court* don't acknowledge Islam as a normal religion and feel the need to distinguish it as something else.
I would think the fact that malware even made it on there at all is indicative of a failure at the same point where they would do such checking, unless they specifically design an extra stage into the process. In any case, I don't think anyone's arguing that HP isn't responsible, liability wise, but that doesn't mean they need to adjust their process to incorporate such checks. Let them decide how to handle changes to their system after they're sued; it may be easier to simply eliminate whatever rogue element got the malware installed in the first place.
It's the old argument about whether or not it's a good idea to expose students to object oriented programming before they even understand procedures. Personally I'm against it, and I dislike Java, but there's nothing fundamental about Java that prevents you from teaching the same curriculum as you would in C++.
I'd be interested in someone presenting more information on the actual effects this RST forging can have on real non-torrent traffic - for instance, web pages with many pictures and hence separate connections, or file transfers that cannot easily be resumed. Such a demonstration would make this hit closer to home for the average user.
(15 seconds to type this, 15 waiting for the preview button in this new crappy form. Damn you, web 2.0!)
Even if you stopped reading at that paragraph, that was still far enough in to find this gem:
Competitors complained that offering internet and media solutions with the operating system harmed competition in the marketplace (despite other operating systems such as Mac OS X and Linux apparently being immune from such criticism).
Yes, damn those Linux bastards for using their stranglehold on the market to mandate free choice for everyone!
I don't know where the hell they even get that stereotype from. I'm at RPI, so there are engineers left and right here, many of them very outgoing. Some of them are regular fratheads, but I'm not claiming that your local liberal arts college won't be able to beat us in contests of beer games, drug abuse, and general lack of worth. The person who wrote that either has a messed up standard of social interaction or has never actually come into contact with engineers.
It's kinda like how antisemitism makes no fucking sense if you even know a jewish person.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the Evil Corporations (TM) are on opposite sides. Big Oil fights peak oil scares, while AT&T promotes the notion of a bandwidth crunch.
Here's the thing: I find it difficult to believe that technical people would categorize hobbies in such a way that would lob everything electronic into "computers", and then ask "what else do you do?". That kind of thinking seems to breed the idea that programmers, IT people, and people who do pure computer science are all the same.
Except in every way, yes, exactly. Oil is a fixed resource whereas bandwidth is by definition a rate; we need to consume oil at a constant rate simply to keep the system going, but sustained bandwidth is easy. Oil gets harder and harder to extract the more we consume, but we can always add more bandwidth without being penalized by how much we already have.
I can understand not RTFAing, and in rare cases the summary, but seriously, the headline? This is an article refuting that claim, providing arguments (and quantitative evidence to support them) against the exaflood scaremongering.
But perhaps your right - slashdot should only post the outrageous corporate propaganda articles, and ignore the writings that challenge such FUD, leaving each individual to judge BS in isolation.
It's this kind of reasoning, that higher price must be an indication of quality, that led to my university increasing tuition by 7% in one year, to "maintain parity" with ivy league schools.
Indeed. I especially liked the transition from the beginning of the letter, where he responded with feigned interest and dozens of requests for more information, to the middle where he gave a detailed technical justification for his design, to the end where he became downright threatening to Monster, and rightly so. Here is a man who knows how to scare off a litigation troll.
Also, notice how he replied on the last day of the two week period Monster's lawyers gave him. This, combined with the number of requests for clarification he made, demonstrates that he will ensure any actual court proceedings drag on for as long as possible.
He sure as hell didn't blink.
There is of course the other major point, that it is absolutely ridiculous how social security numbers are treated as sensitive information and required information in so many unrelated contexts. What idiot thought up the system of authenticating a person for credit using the same token that hundreds of other organizations use to identify that person?
Maybe in a hundred years we'll have registries of public keys and we'll all have private SS keys that are never shared with your credit card company, bank, and (if we were really lucky) government.
Weakest attempt to enumerate badness, EVAR.
Ava?
(Sidenote: I hate the new discussion system. One false keypress and I lose my post, whereas the old form saves text in my browser's cache.)
Nullification is the idea that the sovereignty of the central government is subordinate to that of the states. Under this doctrine, a state could simply refuse to enforce a federal mandate if it deemed it to be unconstitutional, Supreme Court be damned. I believe it was really only tested prior to the Civil War with regards to slavery. In any case, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were both designed to reserve significant powers for the states, but in the end it doesn't even resemble what we have today.
It just seems to me that maintaining the possibility of armed violence against the government as a means of change or protection, is an unfeasible anachronism. I simply don't accept a weapon as a way to fight federal power in this nation. I'm not saying this was always true, just that it no longer makes sense.
Another point I want to make - There's a sig somewhere on slashdot that reads "What part of 'well-organized militia don't you understand?". Since your constitutional right to bear arms was designed to be limited to locally organized groups and not individuals, and since ever since the Civil War it has been established that secession (and nullification?) is not valid, what legal purpose does this amendment even serve?
Unless you have a WMD handy, there's nothing you personally are going to be able to do against the armed forces, but there's plenty you can do against individuals. I suppose you could commit an assassination too if you really wanted to. But I see I misjudged the severity of your stance - you actually expect to keep handy the possibility of another civil war. I suppose that's just not what I mean when I say fight the government.
As for Jefferson, I never claimed to have read his mind, nor was I seriously suggesting the army would drop a nuke on your house instead of arresting you, but I too can use scary bold text to point out how you totally misunderstood my post.
I hardly think any arms you are capable of bearing can pose even the slightest threat to your government, but I'm sure they're great for threatening your fellow citizens. Jefferson didn't have nukes.
I also don't think the "government is supposed to fear the citizens" is supposed to mean that politicians are literally afraid of being murdered by disgruntled tax payers.
I especially appreciated his line about dolling out patriotic savage beatings to suspects in lue of interrogation. Originally I enjoyed those kinds of dramatic scenes, but I'm a lot more afraid of them now that people seem to accept them as appropriate responses.
Your hasty disclaimer - that your relevant, mild, and ordinary hypothetical is indeed just a hypothetical - speaks volumes towards your fear of your own government.
I would recommend neither qualifying nor apologizing for such words. Don't let them take away your right of expression by censoring yourself for them. Instead, embrace your words and defend the strength of your feelings with an indignant fury.
You might want to read this essay: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081057
That was the first time I've remembered kinematics in a long time. Let's see, with 35 mph (16 m/s) decelerated to 0 over 69 ft (21 m), assuming a constant break force, that's a = -6 m/s^2, yielding a stopping time of around t = 2.5 s.
At 40 ft (12 m), we'll be going 24 mph (11 m/s), as calculated both by vf^2 - vi^2 = 2ax, and by the fact that our given distance is about half of what we needed so we'll be about a factor of sqrt(2) slower then.
I did these calculations attempting to debunk your killing-the-baby scenario with the supplied numbers, but I think 24 mph into the other guy's door is enough for fatality.
But now we're back to assuming that the camera and light have been set up in a lawful configuration, and this article is about deception by the city for the purpose of triggering more violations.
I'm surprised at the number of people recommending this kind of action on slashdot, because I would've assumed that modifying your car or employing a device with the sole aim of thwarting traffic law enforcement equipment would be outlawed by any state that cared to employ traffic light cameras in the first place. Is this not the case?
I thought that parenthetical was inserted by the blogger, but I checked the PDF and it's actually in there! We've gotten to the point where even officers of the court* don't acknowledge Islam as a normal religion and feel the need to distinguish it as something else.
*Excluding loony bigots like Thompson
I would think the fact that malware even made it on there at all is indicative of a failure at the same point where they would do such checking, unless they specifically design an extra stage into the process. In any case, I don't think anyone's arguing that HP isn't responsible, liability wise, but that doesn't mean they need to adjust their process to incorporate such checks. Let them decide how to handle changes to their system after they're sued; it may be easier to simply eliminate whatever rogue element got the malware installed in the first place.
It's the old argument about whether or not it's a good idea to expose students to object oriented programming before they even understand procedures. Personally I'm against it, and I dislike Java, but there's nothing fundamental about Java that prevents you from teaching the same curriculum as you would in C++.
I'd be interested in someone presenting more information on the actual effects this RST forging can have on real non-torrent traffic - for instance, web pages with many pictures and hence separate connections, or file transfers that cannot easily be resumed. Such a demonstration would make this hit closer to home for the average user.
(15 seconds to type this, 15 waiting for the preview button in this new crappy form. Damn you, web 2.0!)
Yes, damn those Linux bastards for using their stranglehold on the market to mandate free choice for everyone!
I don't know where the hell they even get that stereotype from. I'm at RPI, so there are engineers left and right here, many of them very outgoing. Some of them are regular fratheads, but I'm not claiming that your local liberal arts college won't be able to beat us in contests of beer games, drug abuse, and general lack of worth. The person who wrote that either has a messed up standard of social interaction or has never actually come into contact with engineers.
It's kinda like how antisemitism makes no fucking sense if you even know a jewish person.
Good point. That's the kind of thing they should have fired back at T-mobile in an email.