You are not alone--with slackware 10.0 and the older version of reiserfs that came with it, I repeatedly suffered filesystem corruption. I couldn't comprehend how they shipped such a buggy FS, but true linux geeks might not discover any problem--it only happened when I unzipped windows archives.
Try to be funny and what they'll do is grant you immunity for anything revealed in the password itself.
I think I read this in a story once and I always wondered if it would work: could a person store evidence of a crime on an encrypted volume such that the key was a confession, and argue for immunity for crimes revealed in the password? He might use the password: "I have pirated MP3s on this volume and have committed copyright infringement." (disregaurding that that would probably be a civil case and immunity might not apply). Ideally he could not be prosecuted for that crime. Is this just absurdly unlikely to work?
There's another factor here too that many people don't consider. Even if the vest *were* to completely stop the penetration of a high powered rifle round, there would still be severe injuries to the person. All the kinetic energy from the bullet has to go somewhere.
Really? The force imparted against the shooter's shoulder has to equal the force imparted by the bullet, no? It's true that the bullet spends more time accelerating in the barrel of the gun (against the shooter's shoulder) than it spends slowing down against your vest, but the difference is probably a few milliseconds. I believe that high power rounds cause injuries, but I would think that most bullets are more like a medium strength punch.
I can't remember enough physics to support this better. If I'm wrong, tell me why.
Judging by the millions of people who use email every second, I think it's safe to place bets on email being dead.
Judging by the millions of people who write emails every second, I think it's safe to say that millions of emails are also dying every second. Otherwise they would have completely clogged the tubes by now.
Again, I haven't lost any freedoms. As for Britain, it sounds like you haven't lost any freedoms either. You're right--most people haven't lost any freedoms. But one purpose of government is to protect the minorities, the ones that aren't so normal. We must protect political dissidents, criminals, and even simple assholes. These people are the ones that need their rights protected most. It's not the average guy who will first suffer from an overzealous government--it's the other, the outsider.
Anecdotal evidence: my girlfriend lived there for a few years and she agreed that the people do love the king. And try to keep in mind that our way of life isn't the only valid way--there may be such a thing as an effective/benevolent ruler. If he were to be scorned, it might take away from the positive public image that gives him power. And remember, he's a dictator. If he rules fairly and well, it's good for him to have power.
This experiment was fundamentally different than the Milgram experiment. The reason the Milgram experiment worked so well was that the subjects did not know that they were subjects of an experiment. Their behavior (under pressure and coersion) was thus accurately observed. They thought that the real subject was the "learner" (who they were asked to shock). The test subjects in this new experiment knew that they were the test subjects, and could more easily divine the purpose of the experiment. The pressure of, "The experiment requires that you continue," would be lost. After all, they knew that the purpose of the experiment was to determine whether and when they would stop.
First off, 100 is an arbitrary number. A million could be possible, using photons to carry signals.
We may not have many uses yet. This is a problem for everybody that tries to predict the future: we do not yet know what we will do with newer technology. When we first invented computers, nobody could imagine word processors or GUI applications, much less digital images or video. The inventor of steam engines probably didn't think they would lead to airplanes. Once we have the technology, people will think of brilliant uses that are beyond our imagination. For the present, it is much more important that a technology like this be "interesting enough to develop," rather than "immediately useful."
Using Gmail and flash can be interesting for a 64-bit Linux distro - Mozilla just crashes.
I'm using gentoo for intel 64 bits (even new pentium-4's are 64 bits now), and Firefox has never crashed on gmail. I installed a 32 bit version alongside my regular version for the occasional flash page I want to see (but I hate flash). Firefox doesn't ever crash because of flash, it just doesn't display it. I suppose it's possible that this is because Gentoo patches its Firefox, but I don't know. If I were more pragmatic, I would simply use the 32 bit version of Firefox for all my browsing needs.
Everything else works nicely. The newest version of OpenOffice supports 64 bit processors natively. I sometimes install software that is marked ~amd64 (not yet fully tested on amd64, usually marked so because less people are using this platform) and they all seem to work fine. In general, if you are considering Linux, the difference between a 64 bit OS and 32 is very small. Go with the 64 if you want the extra geek points.
I'm no expert on Windows, but the 64 bit editions seem to make more decisions about what the user is allowed to do. This might be good in a corporate environment where fixing computers == time and money (?), but I wouldn't like it too much on a personal computer.
SuperDuper! is for people that don't want to take the time to mess with shellscripts and cronjobs and such. Back up everything with almost no options and nothing to screw up. If you wanted to muck around with shellscript and rsync backup solutions, you probably wouldn't be asking here. I installed SuperDuper for my boss and did a couple backups for her (never had to restore), and it seems like a wonderful piece of software.
For me (a geek), it's not greed or righteous principles. It's control. I like knowing tons about how my computer works, and being able to change most or all of it. I like having the configurations for my applications all in the same place, where it is easy to migrate them to another user account or another computer. I like standard methods for starting and stopping the daemons/servers that I run.
Windows lacks a certain transparency. It is more like a black box whose insides are a mystery. If I can't see how it works, I can't change it. One example is the running of applications upon startup. I have always had a hard time disabling pesky applications. In Linux, managing system init scripts is a breeze (though it depends on the distro).
When I use Windows, I get the impression that they think their users don't deserve control. I don't have a really great example to show this, but when I use Windows, I feel condescended to. It's sort of slimy.
My final gripe is that Windows XP OEM (on the computer it was bought with) won't authenticate or register properly upon install. Of course, I'm installing in VMware. Why would I do otherwise? Microsoft makes a lot of intelligent guesses that are pretty good for the average end user, but do not suit me, and they have not done a good job of considering the minority.
Slashdot Mirror
You are not alone--with slackware 10.0 and the older version of reiserfs that came with it, I repeatedly suffered filesystem corruption. I couldn't comprehend how they shipped such a buggy FS, but true linux geeks might not discover any problem--it only happened when I unzipped windows archives.
I think I read this in a story once and I always wondered if it would work: could a person store evidence of a crime on an encrypted volume such that the key was a confession, and argue for immunity for crimes revealed in the password? He might use the password: "I have pirated MP3s on this volume and have committed copyright infringement." (disregaurding that that would probably be a civil case and immunity might not apply). Ideally he could not be prosecuted for that crime. Is this just absurdly unlikely to work?
Really? The force imparted against the shooter's shoulder has to equal the force imparted by the bullet, no? It's true that the bullet spends more time accelerating in the barrel of the gun (against the shooter's shoulder) than it spends slowing down against your vest, but the difference is probably a few milliseconds. I believe that high power rounds cause injuries, but I would think that most bullets are more like a medium strength punch.
I can't remember enough physics to support this better. If I'm wrong, tell me why.
Judging by the millions of people who write emails every second, I think it's safe to say that millions of emails are also dying every second. Otherwise they would have completely clogged the tubes by now.
Anecdotal evidence: my girlfriend lived there for a few years and she agreed that the people do love the king. And try to keep in mind that our way of life isn't the only valid way--there may be such a thing as an effective/benevolent ruler. If he were to be scorned, it might take away from the positive public image that gives him power. And remember, he's a dictator. If he rules fairly and well, it's good for him to have power.
That's a lot of cash. I wonder how they'll carry it?
This experiment was fundamentally different than the Milgram experiment. The reason the Milgram experiment worked so well was that the subjects did not know that they were subjects of an experiment. Their behavior (under pressure and coersion) was thus accurately observed. They thought that the real subject was the "learner" (who they were asked to shock). The test subjects in this new experiment knew that they were the test subjects, and could more easily divine the purpose of the experiment. The pressure of, "The experiment requires that you continue," would be lost. After all, they knew that the purpose of the experiment was to determine whether and when they would stop.
First off, 100 is an arbitrary number. A million could be possible, using photons to carry signals.
We may not have many uses yet. This is a problem for everybody that tries to predict the future: we do not yet know what we will do with newer technology. When we first invented computers, nobody could imagine word processors or GUI applications, much less digital images or video. The inventor of steam engines probably didn't think they would lead to airplanes. Once we have the technology, people will think of brilliant uses that are beyond our imagination. For the present, it is much more important that a technology like this be "interesting enough to develop," rather than "immediately useful."
I'm using gentoo for intel 64 bits (even new pentium-4's are 64 bits now), and Firefox has never crashed on gmail. I installed a 32 bit version alongside my regular version for the occasional flash page I want to see (but I hate flash). Firefox doesn't ever crash because of flash, it just doesn't display it. I suppose it's possible that this is because Gentoo patches its Firefox, but I don't know. If I were more pragmatic, I would simply use the 32 bit version of Firefox for all my browsing needs.
Everything else works nicely. The newest version of OpenOffice supports 64 bit processors natively. I sometimes install software that is marked ~amd64 (not yet fully tested on amd64, usually marked so because less people are using this platform) and they all seem to work fine. In general, if you are considering Linux, the difference between a 64 bit OS and 32 is very small. Go with the 64 if you want the extra geek points.
I'm no expert on Windows, but the 64 bit editions seem to make more decisions about what the user is allowed to do. This might be good in a corporate environment where fixing computers == time and money (?), but I wouldn't like it too much on a personal computer.
SuperDuper! is for people that don't want to take the time to mess with shellscripts and cronjobs and such. Back up everything with almost no options and nothing to screw up. If you wanted to muck around with shellscript and rsync backup solutions, you probably wouldn't be asking here. I installed SuperDuper for my boss and did a couple backups for her (never had to restore), and it seems like a wonderful piece of software.
For me (a geek), it's not greed or righteous principles. It's control. I like knowing tons about how my computer works, and being able to change most or all of it. I like having the configurations for my applications all in the same place, where it is easy to migrate them to another user account or another computer. I like standard methods for starting and stopping the daemons/servers that I run.
Windows lacks a certain transparency. It is more like a black box whose insides are a mystery. If I can't see how it works, I can't change it. One example is the running of applications upon startup. I have always had a hard time disabling pesky applications. In Linux, managing system init scripts is a breeze (though it depends on the distro). When I use Windows, I get the impression that they think their users don't deserve control. I don't have a really great example to show this, but when I use Windows, I feel condescended to. It's sort of slimy.
My final gripe is that Windows XP OEM (on the computer it was bought with) won't authenticate or register properly upon install. Of course, I'm installing in VMware. Why would I do otherwise? Microsoft makes a lot of intelligent guesses that are pretty good for the average end user, but do not suit me, and they have not done a good job of considering the minority.