Yeah, you're right. We're never going to see eye to eye on this one so we can agree to disagree.
I've not had a long ding-dong with someone like this for at least a year now, and it was kind of fun. Sorry for getting a bit "personal" with the insults. In the heat of the moment I forgot my manners.
I agree. Your posting history on this thread certainly does support it. All you offer is conjecture, hyperbole and emotional reactions formed from a vacuum of scientific knowledge on the subject. What are you doing on Slashdot anyway? Its "News for Nerds". Nerds open up things, look inside them, find out how they work and what makes them tick. But your approach to seems to be "Waaaa, don't touch that, you might break it". You're not a Nerd, you're an embarrassment. Even my girlfriend thinks you're a joke. Oh by the way...
Stars of all masses spend the majority of their lives fusing hydrogen nuclei into helium nuclei: we call this stage the main sequence. When all of the hydrogen in the central regions of a star is converted into helium, the star will begin to "burn" helium into carbon. However, the helium in the stellar core will eventually run out as well; so in order to survive, a star must be hot enough to fuse progressively heavier elements, as the lighter ones become exhausted one by one. Stars heavier than about 5 times the mass of the Sun can do this with no problem: they burn hydrogen, and then helium, and then carbon, oxygen, silicon, and so on... until they attempt to fuse iron. Iron is special in that it is the lightest element in the periodic table that doesn't release energy when you attempt to fuse it together. In fact, instead of giving you energy, you end up with less energy than you started with! This means that instead of generating additional pressure to hold up the now extended outer layers of the aging star, the iron fusion actually takes thermal energy from the stellar core. Thus, there is nothing left to combat the ever-present force of gravity from these outer layers. The result: collapse! The lack of radiation pressure generated by the iron-fusing core causes the outer layers to fall towards the centre of the star. This implosion happens very, very quickly: it takes about 15 seconds to complete. During the collapse, the nuclei in the outer parts of the star are pushed very close together, so close that elements heavier than iron are formed.
So what this tells us is that the forces produced by the nuclear reactions in the core of a Sun are so violent that they shield themselves from the other matter in the sun. Any rubbish that survives long enough to enter the outer most parts of the Sun will be held off by the same forces from the nuclear core.
This article also states that Sun's have a very specific order of fuel they attempt to consume. Artificial man made matter is way down that list. So science tells us that the star will run out of fuel and collapse long before it could attempt to fuse anything we throw at it.
Nope, not really. Besides doggedly sticking to one flawed perspective and belabouring it in approximately the same way post after tedious, tedious post, the only thing you have really brought to slashdot is exercise for my fingers.
LOL, what a load of revisionist horse shit. I've offered perspectives based on mass, speed, temperature, and composition. You on the other hand drone on, reiterating the same zombie mantra over and over. You think because you can't understand it that no one else should be able to either. So you resist the possibility of advancing future rubbish processing if it in anyway involves the sun. Retarded Luddite!
Show me evidence to the contrary. As I have stated from the start, you sarcasm-proof individual you, its not a bonfire. If you stick your hand in a fire, as your mommy told you, you will get burned. If you stick your hand in a nuclear reactor, you may mess with that reactor's workings and cause bad things to happen. Now I am sure that there were no nuclear reactors near the farm you grew up in, but if there were, I am equally sure we wouldn't be having this conversation today.
Well you seem to know dicky shit about nuclear reactors too, and maybe thats the crux of your problem. Nuclear reactors get hot, but they don't burn unless they get out of control. And when they do get out of control very little can be done to stop them. Its called meltdown, and then the core will burn through anything they come into contact with. "Processes Elements" (as you seem to like that phrase) ordinary metals, the lot. And there is LOADS of evidence collected to back this up. The Sun, being far more powerful than any meltdown we could cook up, would have no trouble.
And yes the Sun is not a bonfire. And yes its not a uniform ball of flame either. If you bothered to read any of the web sites I pointed you to you'd know that. Its only the core thats nuclear. And as I've repeated over and over and over, NOTHING WE COULD THROW AT THE SUN WOULD MAKE IT TO THE NUCLEAR CORE. It would be destroyed and scattered way before it got that far, for all the reasons I've told you about.
If the research existed, it would be shown to you, you anally retentive troll. The point, dear god in heaven, the point I have been making since the start is that it does not exist
Ah, so finally you admit that this whacky insane idea of yours; that has no basis in known science fact, theory, or supposition... is nothing more than a product of the ramblings of your retarded imagination.
There are special places in this world for people like you... they have white rooms with padded walls, and special pills to make all these nasty doomsday dreams go away.
An ad hominem is an attack on an opponent's character based upon imagined flaws in said character. A troll is someone that says things designed to cause debate and inspire emotion, without adding anything constructive to the debate. I see your ad hominem and raise you a strawman.
So you don't think I've added anything constructive to the debate? Despite teaching you basic awareness of mass, and posting reference material in the form of links to expert web sites (which you have tactfully chosen to ignore on the basis they don't support your argument). In this case, I think the teacher can be excused because his pupil is a dullard.
BTW: the definition of a strawman attack:
THE STRAWMAN ATTACK:The strawman is, perhaps, the most heavily-employed tactic used by Creationists. The strawman attack's name comes from the idea of setting up a strawman and knocking it down. The strawman is a false man, metaphorically representing a false argument. The strawman attack is a very dishonest one. Creationists ruthlessly use this tactic to win public support. In essence, the strawman attack is putting words in your opponent's mouth and then attacking the resulting position, while simultaenously evading the real argument.
That definition seems to fit your arguments very well. You represent a false argument, based on no scientific evidence what so ever, based on some fantasy that throwing a dust spec of alien matter into a bonfire is somehow going implode the bonfire and fry everyone nearby cooking their marshmallows.
I thought the relative size differences were between a grape and a man sized object? Now who has the warped perspective...
Ooo, I recognise that one.. that would be the latter part of the strawman definition, putting words in your opponent's mouth and then attacking the resulting position, while simultaenously evading the real argument. Nice try, but no cigar. Would you like to have another go?
You're the one who brought it up, not me, in staggered awe of the gigantinormous size of the sun. Heres a good one, Richard, and this is going to rock your boat. Actually I doubt it will, since I have been repeating it from the start with no impact on your ultra dense mass. Not all matter is created equal. Repeat that a thousand times and then come back to me. Exampli gratia, would you rather juggle plastic balls or lumps of uranium?
Ok Einstein. Time for you to blind me with science. What kind of exotic matter did you have in mind that our super hot Sun would have such trouble digesting? Me, and the rest of the scientific work await your response with baited breath.
This is great. More far future grasp of the sun's structure. John Titor, is that you? Your entire understanding of environmental interaction appears to extend to first grade ballistics. So the lump of pollution won't punch through the sun and out the far side, and send it whizzing about the solar system like a great balloon of superheated matter? Well I'm glad we settled that hotly debated issue. Pun intended. So instead of concentrating the nastiness we drop in, we sprinkle it lightly across the upper regions of the star. Well thats much better.
My god, its a good job I'm sitting down. That's the first thing you've said that's actually correct. Well done. You're quite right Grasshopper, the pollution won't punch through the Sun and come out the other side. Even if were somehow capable of defying the laws of thermodynamics and hit the sun as a whole, the Sun is for too big for it to maintain momentum, and the Suns core is far too dense for it to penetrate, and the heat far too hot for it to survive, and the pressure (340 billion times Earth's air pressure at sea level) would crush it beyond recognition.
I'm encouraged. Maybe you're learning through osmosis, or some other primitive absorption technique.
Get your head around something else. Yes its big. Well done. Pick up your nobel at the door. But its not comp
No you're not being Trolled, you're supposed to be having an adult debate about the merits/demerits of tossing waste into the Sun. Nice attempt at ad hominem though. And if that's the way you want to play it, well I can give as good as I get.
Having lost the grape argument
Only in your reality distortion field, Sparky. In your warped world, tossing a stone into the sea would likely cause a tsunami off the coast of Australia.
you have degenerated into simple minded mass arguments
Simple minded... mass has EVERYTHING to do with this and is the scientific way to approach this. But then you dismiss it out of hand because you've repeatedly demonstrated a complete failure to grasp the basics. What's even more amazing is your apparent lack of ability to take in extra information and add it to your thought processes to see how the end result changes. Are you so stupidly blinkered about everything in life?
Was the comet composed perhaps of the advanced technological cast offs of a spacegoing race? And this spacegoing race, once it blithely decided it was okay to hurl one lump of crap into the sun, did they then just dump every inconvenient piece of crap into the sun?
Ok, lets ignore mass for the minute, plus the fact you're moving the goal posts away from the space shuttle to the entire earth (I accept that I won the shuttle argument, thank you) and lets explore your new angle.
Everything we make no matter how technologically complex, is made up of various combinations of base elements from the periodic table. Everything we make changes its form with changes in temperature and pressure. Everything burns, or melts and vaporizes. Anything we chuck at the Sun will approach it so slowly and absorb so much heat that by the time it gets there it will be a combination of ash and metallic vapor. It won't actually "hit" the Sun, it'll be a wisp of dirty compounds and elements! It won't penetrate into the depths of the Sun, its just going to scatter and bounce around inside the photosphere where its totally removed from the nuclear goings on in the Sun's core.
Or fuck it.. your minute is up, I can't ignore mass any longer. Man get your head around the fucking SIZE of the thing. Look here and pay special attention to the first paragraph that says:
It is the largest object and contains approximately 98% of the total solar system mass. One hundred and nine Earths would be required to fit across the Sun's disk, and its interior could hold over 1.3 million Earths.
Troll
Twit! You've obviously spent too long out in the Sun. Go back to your science fiction bubble world where you're most comfortable. You probably believe in Martians too.
Ok then let me get real with some hard facts. We know more about the Sun than you're obviously aware of, because we observe it, every day of every year. I've tried (in vain) to explain to you, that the Sun is, has, and will continue to be hit by large space bound objects many many times and still continues to do its thing. But you obviously don't believe me. So how about I show you!
Go here> and take a look at the movie and data. Yes, its a comet hitting the Sun. One of many observed events. Did the Sun explode? No! Did it collapse in on itself? No! Did life as we know it cease to exist? Fucking NO
Now use your imagination a bit. That has to be one frigging big Comet for us to be able to detect it and capture it on film. So what effect do you think us dropping a 2.5 years worth of Space Station rubbish into the Sun would have. Yeah, space station rubbish.. because that's what you were initially objecting to. Absolutely fuck all.
You only get a dead human sized body when the grape sized body is 1) hard, 2) enters it at speed and 3) destroys a part of the body that disrupts the flow of blood to vital organs. Many times people get shot and survive too. You cannot take this analogy and apply it to bits of rubbish entering the Sun because:
1) Any rubbish we throw at the Sun will vaporize before it gets there.
2) Any rubbish we throw at the Sun is not going to get there quickly, and even when it arrives, it would approach the sun very slowly. Hardly "bullet" speed !!
3) I have repeated (and you have ignored because you can't answer it) that the Sun has already consumed vast amounts of material during the course of its lifetime; and regularly ejects many times more matter than we could throw at it annually. Yet it continues on with its multi-billion year lifetime, unaffected and regardless.
Your scare-mongering flies in the face of observed behavior and common sense.
Remind me, is a bullet larger or smaller than a grape?
Huh? What ever are you talking about? I was scaling things down to a size you could visualize to try and get the point across just how infinitesimally small our waste would be in comparison to the size of the sun, AND how small it is compared the the stuff the sun digests on its own anyway.
Since we're taking things to extremes here
I'm not taking anything to extreme, I'm being very realistic. You seem to have a problem visualizing just how small and insignificant we and our rubbish are in comparison to the Sun. It's like, REALLY big! So big, that it could swallow the whole of the earth, rubbish and all and still carry on burning for a few billion years. So don't worry about throwing a few crates of stuff at it.
Now if you really really want to worry about what we do with our rubbish and the effects it has, why don't you direct your attention and energy towards the oceans? That is something worth worrying about.
Yeah. Calculate how much energy that would take. It's actually pretty hard to hit the sun from here.
Well, it very much depends on how much time you want to do it in. If you want to blast something into the Sun from here and have it arrive within your lifetime, then thats going to require a lot of energy. But if you don't care if it gets there 5000 years from now (and why would you care) then all you need is to give it a small steady push from a relatively inexpensive ion thruster, and when it expires let gravity do the rest.
Huh? The Sun has probably swallowed millions of tons of material; probably every element you can imagine, during the course of its lifetime. And it regularly ejects thousands of tons of material during the course of a year in the form of solar flares.
Delicate, is hardly a word you can use when describing our Sun.
And as for us throwing rubbish at it. Well if everything were reduced in size by a factor of a billion, then the Earth would be about 1.3 cm in diameter (the size of a grape) and the Sun would be 1.5 meters in diameter (about the height of a man). The Sun contains 99.8% of the total mass of the solar system (Jupiter contains most of the rest).
So you see, throwing 2.5 years worth of shuttle waste into the Sun, would have the same affect as you walking to a spec of dust so small you couldn't even see it. You wouldn't even notice, and neither would the Sun.
Is it dangerous? Hell yeah, it would be trivial to add a payload to the proof of concepts to automatically format a hard disk on a specific day or after a certain number of generations.
You've just said that viruses need user interaction to propagate, so any monad script a user executes should do so in a user application with user level privs. Thus any other scripts it infects could only be files the user currently owns or has write access to.
In order to add a payload that would be capable of formatting a hard disk the script would have to exploit a software vulnerability to gain elevated privs. That contradicts what you said in your previous post.
Caveat: I'm assuming the user actually does the proper thing and runs without admin rights for their day to day business.
What a load of hypothetical nonsense. To quote from the end of that article:
At this stage, Unix shell script malware as such is more targeted at the specific machine - currently it doesn't spread its code to other machines natively. So far, it couldn't survive on its own.
Yes I remember the Morris worm (1988). It had nothing to do with scripts as it exploited holes in programs that were hanging open on the net. Holes that have long since been closed. Also back then use of firewalls apart from at the corporate gateway were virtually unknown. It also attacked only DEC VAX and Unix boxes. There's zero chance that could happen again today. Firewalls and NAT routers are too common now, and the types of vulnerability it exploited are very well understood and very well managed.
No chance. Why would they bother? Its only a mouse. I'm sure there are no deep dark Apple secrets buried in there.
The simple truth is that the Linux desktop is not Apples target market cos it doesn't have the volume at the moment. Same reason why they don't bother porting QuickTime to Linux. Windows does have the volume, so its worth while writing drivers for.
Besides, if they released drivers for Linux they'd only be depriving some poor kernel hacker out of the fun of writing one.
Huh? I'm trying to think of a situation on Mac OS X or Windows where I click on something to drag it, and then RMB click to do something with it at the same time. Nope, can't think of one.
With Apple giving up on it, is it really worthwhile to develop a PowerPC port
You're falling into the same trap that most of the herd seem to. Just because a vendor announces platform retirement doesn't mean its dead the moment they announce it.
Alpha retirement was announced years ago, yet I still work on projects that are putting new Tru64 Alpha's in. Albeit not for much longer I'm sure. Same with Apple PowerPC. They will be selling new PowerPC systems for a couple of years yet, and then after that there will be a few score million systems out there for many years that will be excellent candidates for FreeBSD servers. I expect there will be lots of bargains to be had on eBay.
You're way behind the times on that one. The results of that "performance" evaluation have nothing to do OSX threads. Anandtech got it wrong. You can find out more here!
1. Click System Preferences on the Dock 2. Click on the Network Icon 3. double-click Airport in the Interface List 4. Click on the TCP/IP tab 5. Open the "Configure IPv4" drop menu and select "Manually" 6. Enter your static IP address 7. Click "Apply Now" and you're done.
In addition, with RAID 1+0 if you loose a drive and replace it, you only have a single disk to disk copy operation to wait for before the raid set is back to full strength.
With RAID 0+1 you have to rebuild the stripe after a disk failure, and then suffer a stripe to stripe copy to restore the raid set, and that's slow !
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you're right. We're never going to see eye to eye on this one so we can agree to disagree.
I've not had a long ding-dong with someone like this for at least a year now, and it was kind of fun. Sorry for getting a bit "personal" with the insults. In the heat of the moment I forgot my manners.
Hope to dual with you again sometime
Have a good one.
BORING TROLL
TROLL
I agree. Your posting history on this thread certainly does support it. All you offer is conjecture, hyperbole and emotional reactions formed from a vacuum of scientific knowledge on the subject. What are you doing on Slashdot anyway? Its "News for Nerds". Nerds open up things, look inside them, find out how they work and what makes them tick. But your approach to seems to be "Waaaa, don't touch that, you might break it". You're not a Nerd, you're an embarrassment. Even my girlfriend thinks you're a joke. Oh by the way
TROLL
TROLL
Quoting from this publication from Cornell
So what this tells us is that the forces produced by the nuclear reactions in the core of a Sun are so violent that they shield themselves from the other matter in the sun. Any rubbish that survives long enough to enter the outer most parts of the Sun will be held off by the same forces from the nuclear core.
This article also states that Sun's have a very specific order of fuel they attempt to consume. Artificial man made matter is way down that list. So science tells us that the star will run out of fuel and collapse long before it could attempt to fuse anything we throw at it.
Nope, not really. Besides doggedly sticking to one flawed perspective and belabouring it in approximately the same way post after tedious, tedious post, the only thing you have really brought to slashdot is exercise for my fingers.
LOL, what a load of revisionist horse shit. I've offered perspectives based on mass, speed, temperature, and composition. You on the other hand drone on, reiterating the same zombie mantra over and over. You think because you can't understand it that no one else should be able to either. So you resist the possibility of advancing future rubbish processing if it in anyway involves the sun. Retarded Luddite!
Show me evidence to the contrary. As I have stated from the start, you sarcasm-proof individual you, its not a bonfire. If you stick your hand in a fire, as your mommy told you, you will get burned. If you stick your hand in a nuclear reactor, you may mess with that reactor's workings and cause bad things to happen. Now I am sure that there were no nuclear reactors near the farm you grew up in, but if there were, I am equally sure we wouldn't be having this conversation today.
Well you seem to know dicky shit about nuclear reactors too, and maybe thats the crux of your problem. Nuclear reactors get hot, but they don't burn unless they get out of control. And when they do get out of control very little can be done to stop them. Its called meltdown, and then the core will burn through anything they come into contact with. "Processes Elements" (as you seem to like that phrase) ordinary metals, the lot. And there is LOADS of evidence collected to back this up. The Sun, being far more powerful than any meltdown we could cook up, would have no trouble.
And yes the Sun is not a bonfire. And yes its not a uniform ball of flame either. If you bothered to read any of the web sites I pointed you to you'd know that. Its only the core thats nuclear. And as I've repeated over and over and over, NOTHING WE COULD THROW AT THE SUN WOULD MAKE IT TO THE NUCLEAR CORE. It would be destroyed and scattered way before it got that far, for all the reasons I've told you about.
If the research existed, it would be shown to you, you anally retentive troll. The point, dear god in heaven, the point I have been making since the start is that it does not exist
Ah, so finally you admit that this whacky insane idea of yours; that has no basis in known science fact, theory, or supposition
There are special places in this world for people like you
An ad hominem is an attack on an opponent's character based upon imagined flaws in said character. A troll is someone that says things designed to cause debate and inspire emotion, without adding anything constructive to the debate. I see your ad hominem and raise you a strawman.
So you don't think I've added anything constructive to the debate? Despite teaching you basic awareness of mass, and posting reference material in the form of links to expert web sites (which you have tactfully chosen to ignore on the basis they don't support your argument). In this case, I think the teacher can be excused because his pupil is a dullard.
BTW: the definition of a strawman attack:
THE STRAWMAN ATTACK: The strawman is, perhaps, the most heavily-employed tactic used by Creationists. The strawman attack's name comes from the idea of setting up a strawman and knocking it down. The strawman is a false man, metaphorically representing a false argument. The strawman attack is a very dishonest one. Creationists ruthlessly use this tactic to win public support. In essence, the strawman attack is putting words in your opponent's mouth and then attacking the resulting position, while simultaenously evading the real argument.
That definition seems to fit your arguments very well. You represent a false argument, based on no scientific evidence what so ever, based on some fantasy that throwing a dust spec of alien matter into a bonfire is somehow going implode the bonfire and fry everyone nearby cooking their marshmallows.
I thought the relative size differences were between a grape and a man sized object? Now who has the warped perspective...
Ooo, I recognise that one
You're the one who brought it up, not me, in staggered awe of the gigantinormous size of the sun. Heres a good one, Richard, and this is going to rock your boat. Actually I doubt it will, since I have been repeating it from the start with no impact on your ultra dense mass. Not all matter is created equal. Repeat that a thousand times and then come back to me. Exampli gratia, would you rather juggle plastic balls or lumps of uranium?
Ok Einstein. Time for you to blind me with science. What kind of exotic matter did you have in mind that our super hot Sun would have such trouble digesting? Me, and the rest of the scientific work await your response with baited breath.
This is great. More far future grasp of the sun's structure. John Titor, is that you? Your entire understanding of environmental interaction appears to extend to first grade ballistics. So the lump of pollution won't punch through the sun and out the far side, and send it whizzing about the solar system like a great balloon of superheated matter? Well I'm glad we settled that hotly debated issue. Pun intended. So instead of concentrating the nastiness we drop in, we sprinkle it lightly across the upper regions of the star. Well thats much better.
My god, its a good job I'm sitting down. That's the first thing you've said that's actually correct. Well done. You're quite right Grasshopper, the pollution won't punch through the Sun and come out the other side. Even if were somehow capable of defying the laws of thermodynamics and hit the sun as a whole, the Sun is for too big for it to maintain momentum, and the Suns core is far too dense for it to penetrate, and the heat far too hot for it to survive, and the pressure (340 billion times Earth's air pressure at sea level) would crush it beyond recognition.
I'm encouraged. Maybe you're learning through osmosis, or some other primitive absorption technique.
Get your head around something else. Yes its big. Well done. Pick up your nobel at the door. But its not comp
Having lost the grape argument
Only in your reality distortion field, Sparky. In your warped world, tossing a stone into the sea would likely cause a tsunami off the coast of Australia.
you have degenerated into simple minded mass arguments
Simple minded
Was the comet composed perhaps of the advanced technological cast offs of a spacegoing race? And this spacegoing race, once it blithely decided it was okay to hurl one lump of crap into the sun, did they then just dump every inconvenient piece of crap into the sun?
Ok, lets ignore mass for the minute, plus the fact you're moving the goal posts away from the space shuttle to the entire earth (I accept that I won the shuttle argument, thank you) and lets explore your new angle.
Everything we make no matter how technologically complex, is made up of various combinations of base elements from the periodic table. Everything we make changes its form with changes in temperature and pressure. Everything burns, or melts and vaporizes. Anything we chuck at the Sun will approach it so slowly and absorb so much heat that by the time it gets there it will be a combination of ash and metallic vapor. It won't actually "hit" the Sun, it'll be a wisp of dirty compounds and elements! It won't penetrate into the depths of the Sun, its just going to scatter and bounce around inside the photosphere where its totally removed from the nuclear goings on in the Sun's core.
Or fuck it
Troll
Twit! You've obviously spent too long out in the Sun. Go back to your science fiction bubble world where you're most comfortable. You probably believe in Martians too.
Good lord its like arguing with a wall
Ditto!
Ok then let me get real with some hard facts. We know more about the Sun than you're obviously aware of, because we observe it, every day of every year. I've tried (in vain) to explain to you, that the Sun is, has, and will continue to be hit by large space bound objects many many times and still continues to do its thing. But you obviously don't believe me. So how about I show you!
Go here> and take a look at the movie and data. Yes, its a comet hitting the Sun. One of many observed events. Did the Sun explode? No! Did it collapse in on itself? No! Did life as we know it cease to exist? Fucking NO
Now use your imagination a bit. That has to be one frigging big Comet for us to be able to detect it and capture it on film. So what effect do you think us dropping a 2.5 years worth of Space Station rubbish into the Sun would have. Yeah, space station rubbish
Has the light bulb come on yet?
If you don't get this by now you're a lost cause!
You only get a dead human sized body when the grape sized body is 1) hard, 2) enters it at speed and 3) destroys a part of the body that disrupts the flow of blood to vital organs. Many times people get shot and survive too. You cannot take this analogy and apply it to bits of rubbish entering the Sun because:
1) Any rubbish we throw at the Sun will vaporize before it gets there.
2) Any rubbish we throw at the Sun is not going to get there quickly, and even when it arrives, it would approach the sun very slowly. Hardly "bullet" speed !!
3) I have repeated (and you have ignored because you can't answer it) that the Sun has already consumed vast amounts of material during the course of its lifetime; and regularly ejects many times more matter than we could throw at it annually. Yet it continues on with its multi-billion year lifetime, unaffected and regardless.
Your scare-mongering flies in the face of observed behavior and common sense.
Remind me, is a bullet larger or smaller than a grape?
Huh? What ever are you talking about? I was scaling things down to a size you could visualize to try and get the point across just how infinitesimally small our waste would be in comparison to the size of the sun, AND how small it is compared the the stuff the sun digests on its own anyway.
Since we're taking things to extremes here
I'm not taking anything to extreme, I'm being very realistic. You seem to have a problem visualizing just how small and insignificant we and our rubbish are in comparison to the Sun. It's like, REALLY big! So big, that it could swallow the whole of the earth, rubbish and all and still carry on burning for a few billion years. So don't worry about throwing a few crates of stuff at it.
Now if you really really want to worry about what we do with our rubbish and the effects it has, why don't you direct your attention and energy towards the oceans? That is something worth worrying about.
Yeah. Calculate how much energy that would take. It's actually pretty hard to hit the sun from here.
Well, it very much depends on how much time you want to do it in. If you want to blast something into the Sun from here and have it arrive within your lifetime, then thats going to require a lot of energy. But if you don't care if it gets there 5000 years from now (and why would you care) then all you need is to give it a small steady push from a relatively inexpensive ion thruster, and when it expires let gravity do the rest.
Huh? The Sun has probably swallowed millions of tons of material; probably every element you can imagine, during the course of its lifetime. And it regularly ejects thousands of tons of material during the course of a year in the form of solar flares.
Delicate, is hardly a word you can use when describing our Sun.
And as for us throwing rubbish at it. Well if everything were reduced in size by a factor of a billion, then the Earth would be about 1.3 cm in diameter (the size of a grape) and the Sun would be 1.5 meters in diameter (about the height of a man). The Sun contains 99.8% of the total mass of the solar system (Jupiter contains most of the rest).
So you see, throwing 2.5 years worth of shuttle waste into the Sun, would have the same affect as you walking to a spec of dust so small you couldn't even see it. You wouldn't even notice, and neither would the Sun.
Is it dangerous? Hell yeah, it would be trivial to add a payload to the proof of concepts to automatically format a hard disk on a specific day or after a certain number of generations.
You've just said that viruses need user interaction to propagate, so any monad script a user executes should do so in a user application with user level privs. Thus any other scripts it infects could only be files the user currently owns or has write access to.
In order to add a payload that would be capable of formatting a hard disk the script would have to exploit a software vulnerability to gain elevated privs. That contradicts what you said in your previous post.
Caveat: I'm assuming the user actually does the proper thing and runs without admin rights for their day to day business.
What a load of hypothetical nonsense. To quote from the end of that article:
At this stage, Unix shell script malware as such is more targeted at the specific machine - currently it doesn't spread its code to other machines natively. So far, it couldn't survive on its own.
Yes I remember the Morris worm (1988). It had nothing to do with scripts as it exploited holes in programs that were hanging open on the net. Holes that have long since been closed. Also back then use of firewalls apart from at the corporate gateway were virtually unknown. It also attacked only DEC VAX and Unix boxes. There's zero chance that could happen again today. Firewalls and NAT routers are too common now, and the types of vulnerability it exploited are very well understood and very well managed.
'nuff said !
No chance. Why would they bother? Its only a mouse. I'm sure there are no deep dark Apple secrets buried in there.
The simple truth is that the Linux desktop is not Apples target market cos it doesn't have the volume at the moment. Same reason why they don't bother porting QuickTime to Linux. Windows does have the volume, so its worth while writing drivers for.
Besides, if they released drivers for Linux they'd only be depriving some poor kernel hacker out of the fun of writing one.
Ditto! The review this article pointed to was well worth the read, and without Slashdot drawing my attention to it I probably would have missed it.
Not a dupe, as this was well justified.
Huh? I'm trying to think of a situation on Mac OS X or Windows where I click on something to drag it, and then RMB click to do something with it at the same time. Nope, can't think of one.
Dam, where are my mod points when I need them. That's the first useful description of how it works that I've read so far.
With Apple giving up on it, is it really worthwhile to develop a PowerPC port
You're falling into the same trap that most of the herd seem to. Just because a vendor announces platform retirement doesn't mean its dead the moment they announce it.
Alpha retirement was announced years ago, yet I still work on projects that are putting new Tru64 Alpha's in. Albeit not for much longer I'm sure. Same with Apple PowerPC. They will be selling new PowerPC systems for a couple of years yet, and then after that there will be a few score million systems out there for many years that will be excellent candidates for FreeBSD servers. I expect there will be lots of bargains to be had on eBay.
You're way behind the times on that one. The results of that "performance" evaluation have nothing to do OSX threads. Anandtech got it wrong. You can find out more here!
1. Click System Preferences on the Dock
2. Click on the Network Icon
3. double-click Airport in the Interface List
4. Click on the TCP/IP tab
5. Open the "Configure IPv4" drop menu and select "Manually"
6. Enter your static IP address
7. Click "Apply Now" and you're done.
How difficult is that?
In addition, with RAID 1+0 if you loose a drive and replace it, you only have a single disk to disk copy operation to wait for before the raid set is back to full strength.
With RAID 0+1 you have to rebuild the stripe after a disk failure, and then suffer a stripe to stripe copy to restore the raid set, and that's slow !
RAID 0+1 should be banned.