Comment Re:Stupid question: how do you use it? (Score 3, Funny) 88
So you plug the device into an SSH port
Are you from TRON?
So you plug the device into an SSH port
Are you from TRON?
100% of galaxies have supermassive black holes near them.
Not quite.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_...
So four galaxies around the same age had nearly the same mass by sheer random probability
That's one possibility. Funny thing about science, though, is that it isn't just going to shrug and say "Eh. Probability." and ignore something interesting.
"We looked at 1% of the universe and didn't see something like this so it must be impossible" is not valid science.
No, it's not. But then no-one's saying that.
Nope. She was named, as Jane Doe.
Which is not her name. Well, it might be, but it almost certainly isn't.
So you advocate for that police state where anyone arrested is obviously guilty unless they prove otherwise.
No, I don't, and I've never said he's obviously guilty. I'm not in a court of law. I'm not going to be on the jury. I'm allowed to express my opinion that it's a little bit suspicious that he's taken the opportunity to state it's "out of context" without stating "I didn't do it."
And they are a people with the knowledge, not the FBI and not Roberts.
Blowhard or not, I'm pretty sure Roberts is the one who knows better than anyone else whether or not he did this.
"If he did what he said he did, why is he not in jail?
Because, contrary to some opinions, America is not yet a police state, and they still like to have silly things like trials.
And if he didn't do it, why is the FBI saying he did?"
A better question would be "why isn't he saying he didn't?"
You can't charge someone with having killed "someone" unless you name that someone.
Eh, I'm pretty sure you can. Here's one such case
You can't even charge them if you have a name of the murdered, unless you have a time and place named.
Again, that seems pretty unlikely.
Frankly, it's complete bullshit. The systems are completely, physically separate. There is no way to hack the thrust from the in-flight entertainment system because they are not connected to each other.
What are your qualifications to be able to say so?
The systems should be separate. There should be no way to hack into avionics. That doesn't necessarily make it so.
If you really do know, then great, I am more informed than I was previously was.
Shakespeare was an ape, not a monkey. And he didn't have a typewriter.
On Wikipedia's Infinite monkey theorem page, the very first sentence under the heading "Solution" is:
There is a straightforward proof of this theorem.
Another commenter has said that Penzias demonstrated the astronomically vast amount of time such an effort would take, but this is not a disproof of the theorem.
pages 404
Is it bad that my first thought when I read that was: "How could he not find out how many pages it had?"
No, but the bodies will start piling up with greater accuracy.
Most Americans have different opinions to me and my wife and are therefore wrong.
FTFY.
What I'm pointing out is that him previously stating that he took control of a virtual plane does not rule out him subsequently taking control of a real plane, though it's not clear from the article just what period "previously" covers, and now I think about it it's vague enough to make little sense whichever way you take it.
Still, his previous denial that he took control of an actual plane does seem to clash a little with his new stance of apparently quite carefully not denying that he took control of an actual plane.
No, according to the article he had previously said he did it in a simulated environment. But now the FBI is claiming he's admitted to doing it on an actual plane.
And his most recent stance seems to be that: "he wouldn’t respond directly to questions about whether he had hacked that previous flight mentioned in the affidavit."
If he (still) didn't do it, he could just say he (still) didn't do it. "Out of context" sounds suspiciously like "yes I did, but..."
he didn't do it (on a real plane).
The "not on a real plane" bit comes from this paragraph of the article:
Roberts had previously told WIRED that he caused a plane to climb during a simulated test on a virtual environment he and a colleague created, but he insisted then that he had not interfered with the operation of a plane while in flight.
That was then. This is now.
The FBI says he admitted to - briefly - taking control of a plane
Mass of the truck?
Not for friction. Friction is massless.
Not sure what you mean by "not for friction." As I understand it the coefficient of friction for two materials doesn't depend on mass, but doesn't the "friction force" depend on the amount of force pressing the materials together? I.e. the weight of the truck? Okay, I said "mass," but I'm pretty sure the incident recounted occurred on Earth.
Anyway, so does that increase in "friction force" then balance the additional intertia of a heavier truck? My tests with empty and fully-laden cereal boxes and a carpeted floor are inconclusive but suggest that this may well be the case, so I am enlightened.
If you knew physics, you'd know that.
Never said I did. That's why I asking questions, and why I started my post with "correct me if I'm wrong," so I'm not sure why you've included that remark, which comes across as a bit condescending.
Perhaps "winding" would then be the best word. No confusion, and same meaning.
But then I wouldn't have been able to make it into an oblique reference to a Family Guy joke.
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
