The Irish Potato Famine happened because Ireland was growing a small range of species of potato.
The same thing with Virtualization, each VM will not be completely secure and will have holes in it but
spreading will be reduced because only a smaller portion of application will use that OS to virtualize.
I don't think that analogy applies here. I think TA's point is that the hypervisor itself may not be any more secure than the OSes it virtualizes. So now you're hypervisor OR the OS it's running may get hacked.
And, so that I am not totally OT here...the tag "securitytheater" is totally appropriate here. Does anyone actually think this is enforceable? Would a real terrorist, one with the intelligence and resources to carry out some type of devastating attack, be stopped by a do-not-fly list? One has to wonder.
Whether it's right or not, I imagine there's a big CYA factor involved here. Surely a smart terrorist isn't going to try another plane hijacking in the U.S. for another 20 years or so. Surely a known terrorist would invent a new name to use on a hijacking mission. But suppose a known (or suspected) terrorist, "Yuesa Musdayah", traveling under that name, hijacked and crashed a plane into a building. Would you like to be the head of the TSA, reporting that you'd let a known (or even suspected) terrorist board? I'll bet a lot of the same people complaining about the watch list would start complaining that it wasn't used. Yeah, maybe it's disproportionate, but this IS the government we're talking about.
As things currently stand, no state can regulate tailpipe CO2 emissions. When California wins their lawsuit, then states will be able to choose weather to follow CA CO2 regulations or to follow the Federal do-nothing approach.
So how does this work, exactly? If I decide to drive to (or through) a state that has tougher CO2 laws, and my car is non-compliant, could I get a ticket?
When you apply for a patent, that's the day the prior art becomes effective.
TFA says (as near as I can tell) that the patent was filed in Mar 2004. I'm not sure how long wikipedia has handled search strings in the URL, but it was created in 2001. Actually, this is a pretty common and simple thing to do. I have a website that does it. I wasn't the one who set it up, but I think it was just a 404 redirect to a script.
ELECTRICAL fire. With all these IN-FLIGHT entertainment and goodies, its easier day by day to cause havoc on an air plane. Just rip open or screw open the in-flight ENTERTAINMENT center, tv or whatever and short circuit it.
... unless the designers have employed some of those high-tech "fuse" thingies. Maybe you'd be better off just using your laptop battery.
Now maybe the "net neutrality isn't important because we can trust giant corporations not to screw their customers crowd" will shut up. Of course, the people getting paid to lobby or keep those bills out of Congress won't change their mind, but maybe regular people will. And that's a step in the right direction.
Or maybe the customers will notice and drop service or go to a competitor. I don't think anyone expects the giant corporations to be good without outside pressure. It's just better (IMO) if the pressure comes from the customers, rather than the government. The problem is that the industry is so regulated already, the customers may have no where else to go.
You know, with real competition, I can imagine a NON - neutral web working quite well. Say ISP "A" was throttling or blocking torrents and customers didn't like that. That's a good opportunity for ISP "B" to start up and NOT block it. Then the people who want torrents move to "B" and the people who stay with "A" (might) have better service because they're not competing with people constantly downloading GBs of files (whether or not it's not all warez and pr0n).
But I guess that's not even the point now. What this is about is the simple question whether God (provided he exists) really wants us to cling to a book and ignore everything that contradicts it, or whether he would rather want us to use the gift we have to grow beyond and above it.
Well, if we do assume (for the sake of arguing from common ground) that God exists, isn't it possible that he DOES want us to believe the traditions about Him that have been handed down for millennia in spite of what we PERCEIVE to be contradictions?
Though, to be honest, I'd rather think the Bible and all the scriptures are God's test of humanity. Whether we actually accept his idea of free will or whether we're just following some old books like sheep, no matter whether logic and reason tell us that something can't be quite right.
To all the atheists out there (and I don't know if the poster I'm replying to is an atheist or not): If we religious people are just sheep blindly following what we've been taught, I really think you have to forgive us. Because if there is no spiritual world, then "belief" and "knowledge" really must boil down to chemical reactions in animal brain tissue - which makes all of our reasoning very limited and potentially very error-prone. We are all then "just sheep". We are cells reacting to stimuli, and what we believe is not really belief and we don't have any choice anyway, so don't be angry about it. (Oh, that's right, you can't help being angry about it because that's just your cells reacting to your environment)
Now if you believe (as I do), that what I described above is contrary to your experience and your nature, then believing in a "soul" or some other agent of "free will" isn't a big leap. Think about it - if you really have free will, science can never address the mechanism by which you make choices. If your choices are predicable by formula, then I don't think you can call it free will. And why should we discount the possibility of such things existing? It seems to me to be circular reasoning to discount them: "We only believe in what science can prove, because if science can't prove it we can't know it exists". Science becomes the sole source of knowledge. It becomes God. Well, there's a big difference between "we can't know it exists" and "we know it can't exist"
... The main point of the Prime series (and all Metroid series really) was to explore and find power-ups that allowed you to get farther into the "dungeons"... one of the key features that sets Prime apart from other more traditional FPS titles is the need to use the various Visors and jump upgrades which effectively make the game play closer to a platformer such as Mario Sunshine. The fairly constant switch to third person when performing certain jumps and using the morph ball also serves to distance Prime from a FPS.
So I guess to the purists Half Life 2 isn't a FPS because there are physics puzzles. And Doom wasn't a FPS because you needed to navigate "dungeons" and find and use keys. Halo isn't a FPS because of all the 3rd person cutscenes.
Now, I'm being a bit of a hypocrite because I don't personally feel like it's a REAL fps unless you have a keyboard and mouse (I never got into consoles), but logically, if it's mostly first person and mostly shooting, I think you pretty much have to put it in the FPS category, even if it does overlap with other genres a bit.
Ha! I confess, I cut that post short to try to get the first post (I'd never gotten one before!)
Anyway, the problem with trying to get some "miles per gallon" efficiency rating on computers is defining the "miles". For example, if computer A is 2 times faster and uses 1.5 times the energy compared to computer B at full load, and both computers are run at full load 8 hrs a day (doing some serious number crunching), which computer is more efficient? A is using more power, but is doing twice the amount of "work" of B. So do you measure straight Watts? Watts / MFLOPS? If you use MFLOPS, how do you account for differences in architecture?
Hmm - how does Voice Over Internet Protocol not constitute internet access? Will this then be applicable to things like Skype, and other hybrid (i.e. video/voice/chat) VOIP services that don't resemble POTS so strongly?
The summary is confusing, IMO. The only thing the article says about VOIP is:
But other lawmakers have expressed concerns about a permanent ban, saying it would hurt the ability of state and local governments to raise funds. A permanent ban would give lawmakers little recourse against telecommunications companies that try to sneak other services, such as VoIP, into the tax ban, critics have argued.
So it sounds like VOIP is not excluded from the tax ban. Apparently some congressmen are concerned about loss of telephone tax revenue as people switch to tax-free VOIP.
Why do we allow them to advertise prescription only drugs to the public exactly?
Maybe because of "free speech"? Why shouldn't they be able to advertise prescription drugs? It might give you the chance to (as they say in the commercials) "ask your doctor" about a new drug he may never have thought to prescribe you. Doctors are not perfect or omniscient. And doctors watch TV, too.
instead of making cars that can fly, why not make a small private airplane that you can drive on the roads & highways... So, are you trying to improve on the original summary?
This is little different from Soviet Russia except instead of one party, we've got two.
IMO, a 1 and 2 party system are more than a little different. I think the biggest problem with our "system" is the people in it. Here are some interesting quotes from Alexis de Toqueville that ring true to me:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
... well, we've long outlived that prediction
The best laws cannot make a constitution work in spite of morals; morals can turn the worst laws to advantage. That is a commonplace truth, but one to which my studies are always bringing me back. It is the central point in my conception. I see it at the end of all my reflections.
I'm not saying a 3, 4, or 10 party system wouldn't be better, but I doubt it would cause any really meaningful change. In Japan, they have more than 2 major parties, but the LDP has held a majority for many years, and some of the other parties have combined in order to have a chance of competing. Apparently, the LDP itself began as a coalition. So maybe there's some natural tendency toward having 2 parties. I don't know. IANA political scientist.
The last paragraph from the article:
Moreover, no matter what neural correlates scientists may find, the results cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Although atheists might argue that finding spirituality in the brain implies that religion is nothing more than divine delusion, the nuns were thrilled by their brain scans for precisely the opposite reason: they seemed to provide confirmation of God's interactions with them. After all, finding a cerebral source for spiritual experiences could serve equally well to identify the medium through which God reaches out to humanity. Thus, the nuns' forays into the tubular brain scanner did not undermine their faith. On the contrary, the science gave them an even greater reason to believe.
The thing is that the "documented evidence" exists in one place. Other than the Bible there's no record of a "Jesus" existing or doing the things that the people who believe in invisible men claim he did.
The "one place" you mention is actually a collection of books and letters by different authors, so calling the Bible "one place" is a little misleading. Besides that, there were other books that referred to Jesus that were not included in the Bible (I don't know exactly what they were or what were the reasons against inclusion, but I'm sure you could find out if you wanted to).
How exactly do you quantify evolution? Mutations per million years?
Whatever the unit represents, I think they should call it "the Darwin". Then you could use it in a derogatory sense like, "he's about 2 Darwins behind everyone else."
Slashdot Mirror
The same thing with Virtualization, each VM will not be completely secure and will have holes in it but spreading will be reduced because only a smaller portion of application will use that OS to virtualize.
I don't think that analogy applies here. I think TA's point is that the hypervisor itself may not be any more secure than the OSes it virtualizes. So now you're hypervisor OR the OS it's running may get hacked.
Whether it's right or not, I imagine there's a big CYA factor involved here. Surely a smart terrorist isn't going to try another plane hijacking in the U.S. for another 20 years or so. Surely a known terrorist would invent a new name to use on a hijacking mission. But suppose a known (or suspected) terrorist, "Yuesa Musdayah", traveling under that name, hijacked and crashed a plane into a building. Would you like to be the head of the TSA, reporting that you'd let a known (or even suspected) terrorist board? I'll bet a lot of the same people complaining about the watch list would start complaining that it wasn't used. Yeah, maybe it's disproportionate, but this IS the government we're talking about.
So how does this work, exactly? If I decide to drive to (or through) a state that has tougher CO2 laws, and my car is non-compliant, could I get a ticket?
Programmer: I need a storage upgrade
DBA: You don't need a storage upgrade
At least it puts him beyond Joe Sixbox.
TFA says (as near as I can tell) that the patent was filed in Mar 2004. I'm not sure how long wikipedia has handled search strings in the URL, but it was created in 2001. Actually, this is a pretty common and simple thing to do. I have a website that does it. I wasn't the one who set it up, but I think it was just a 404 redirect to a script.
Did you test that link? It does work (after a redirect).
... unless the designers have employed some of those high-tech "fuse" thingies. Maybe you'd be better off just using your laptop battery.
Isn't this the same frequency range that let's you see through clothes? And it's specifically for transmitting hd video?
Or maybe the customers will notice and drop service or go to a competitor. I don't think anyone expects the giant corporations to be good without outside pressure. It's just better (IMO) if the pressure comes from the customers, rather than the government. The problem is that the industry is so regulated already, the customers may have no where else to go.
You know, with real competition, I can imagine a NON - neutral web working quite well. Say ISP "A" was throttling or blocking torrents and customers didn't like that. That's a good opportunity for ISP "B" to start up and NOT block it. Then the people who want torrents move to "B" and the people who stay with "A" (might) have better service because they're not competing with people constantly downloading GBs of files (whether or not it's not all warez and pr0n).
Well, if we do assume (for the sake of arguing from common ground) that God exists, isn't it possible that he DOES want us to believe the traditions about Him that have been handed down for millennia in spite of what we PERCEIVE to be contradictions?
To all the atheists out there (and I don't know if the poster I'm replying to is an atheist or not): If we religious people are just sheep blindly following what we've been taught, I really think you have to forgive us. Because if there is no spiritual world, then "belief" and "knowledge" really must boil down to chemical reactions in animal brain tissue - which makes all of our reasoning very limited and potentially very error-prone. We are all then "just sheep". We are cells reacting to stimuli, and what we believe is not really belief and we don't have any choice anyway, so don't be angry about it. (Oh, that's right, you can't help being angry about it because that's just your cells reacting to your environment)
Now if you believe (as I do), that what I described above is contrary to your experience and your nature, then believing in a "soul" or some other agent of "free will" isn't a big leap. Think about it - if you really have free will, science can never address the mechanism by which you make choices. If your choices are predicable by formula, then I don't think you can call it free will. And why should we discount the possibility of such things existing? It seems to me to be circular reasoning to discount them: "We only believe in what science can prove, because if science can't prove it we can't know it exists". Science becomes the sole source of knowledge. It becomes God. Well, there's a big difference between "we can't know it exists" and "we know it can't exist"
... The main point of the Prime series (and all Metroid series really) was to explore and find power-ups that allowed you to get farther into the "dungeons"So I guess to the purists Half Life 2 isn't a FPS because there are physics puzzles. And Doom wasn't a FPS because you needed to navigate "dungeons" and find and use keys. Halo isn't a FPS because of all the 3rd person cutscenes.
Now, I'm being a bit of a hypocrite because I don't personally feel like it's a REAL fps unless you have a keyboard and mouse (I never got into consoles), but logically, if it's mostly first person and mostly shooting, I think you pretty much have to put it in the FPS category, even if it does overlap with other genres a bit.
Ha! I confess, I cut that post short to try to get the first post (I'd never gotten one before!)
Anyway, the problem with trying to get some "miles per gallon" efficiency rating on computers is defining the "miles". For example, if computer A is 2 times faster and uses 1.5 times the energy compared to computer B at full load, and both computers are run at full load 8 hrs a day (doing some serious number crunching), which computer is more efficient? A is using more power, but is doing twice the amount of "work" of B. So do you measure straight Watts? Watts / MFLOPS? If you use MFLOPS, how do you account for differences in architecture?
Oh, but there are so many ways to play with statistics. Hey, is the the first post?
Oops! I read it again, and I guess VOIP is excluded. Actually, it says, "services such as VOIP" are excluded. I wonder what the other services are.
The summary is confusing, IMO. The only thing the article says about VOIP is:
But other lawmakers have expressed concerns about a permanent ban, saying it would hurt the ability of state and local governments to raise funds. A permanent ban would give lawmakers little recourse against telecommunications companies that try to sneak other services, such as VoIP, into the tax ban, critics have argued.So it sounds like VOIP is not excluded from the tax ban. Apparently some congressmen are concerned about loss of telephone tax revenue as people switch to tax-free VOIP.
Maybe because of "free speech"? Why shouldn't they be able to advertise prescription drugs? It might give you the chance to (as they say in the commercials) "ask your doctor" about a new drug he may never have thought to prescribe you. Doctors are not perfect or omniscient. And doctors watch TV, too.
IMO, a 1 and 2 party system are more than a little different. I think the biggest problem with our "system" is the people in it. Here are some interesting quotes from Alexis de Toqueville that ring true to me:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.... well, we've long outlived that prediction
The best laws cannot make a constitution work in spite of morals; morals can turn the worst laws to advantage. That is a commonplace truth, but one to which my studies are always bringing me back. It is the central point in my conception. I see it at the end of all my reflections.I'm not saying a 3, 4, or 10 party system wouldn't be better, but I doubt it would cause any really meaningful change. In Japan, they have more than 2 major parties, but the LDP has held a majority for many years, and some of the other parties have combined in order to have a chance of competing. Apparently, the LDP itself began as a coalition. So maybe there's some natural tendency toward having 2 parties. I don't know. IANA political scientist.
Interesting. So what does "iPod" mean in british?
This is from Japan, so obviously this is just another step toward a direct brain interface for battle mechs.
The "one place" you mention is actually a collection of books and letters by different authors, so calling the Bible "one place" is a little misleading. Besides that, there were other books that referred to Jesus that were not included in the Bible (I don't know exactly what they were or what were the reasons against inclusion, but I'm sure you could find out if you wanted to).
And BTW, Jesus loves you
How exactly do you quantify evolution? Mutations per million years?
Whatever the unit represents, I think they should call it "the Darwin". Then you could use it in a derogatory sense like, "he's about 2 Darwins behind everyone else."