I hope the next massive trojan, doesn't start "visiting" these websites, and of course, it won't infect congressmen or even the president's computer.
Because if it infects regular citizens... I guess many people is going to land jail. Great next trick and seems easier than "planting" child porn on people's computers.
I'm sorry you didn't get modded up.... at least funny. Noticing that based on Fourier you can describe most likely any song as a sum of sines and cosines with Pi as that frequency factor... yes.. it's inevitable that the sampling is related to Pi. I think the RIAA will switch to deg-radians instead of radians. Maybe even g-radians just to make it more interesting.
I don't think you have it right. The fact that the companies don't charge you for "in their network" calls, doesn't mean you are not charged. I'm not sure they got into any agreement (must of my friends are on the same operator), but I'm almost sure, I was charged (or minutes discounted from my plan) whenever I called someone on another network.
the "we don't charge you if you call within the network or we don't charge you if you call 5 friends, is part of the service plan, and not a standard feature. You probably need to go and get a pre paid phone and realize what they really charge for when you're not on one of their plans.
Nah. I think this is just Foxconn PR to make people believe that living in caves is the best their employees can have and an awesome green environment. Next, they will say, they even have caves for their workers in their factories. Kiddiiing!;-)
And I won't be critic to your choices. You may hear the whole album and think is good or some songs may just grow in you later. I just don't think it's the overall mentality nowadays and people, having the opportunity of paying for a single song they want, to go ahead and buy the full album.
My point being that having the chance of buying just a couple of songs (and I'd assume most of the time just one), may lead to people just not buying the whole album. I'm thinking for each person that stop buying the whole album and enjoys only half of it, there needs to be at least 5 more people that buys a single song, or another that buys half of it to make for the revenue.
This math... seems to be overly simplified, but may show a drop in revenue without even including piracy in the picture.
Also, I used to buy CDs for about $15, some of them contained as low as 9 songs, 5 of them that I didn't want in first place. So I was paying about $7 of unnecessary overhead, and songs weren't cheaper than $1. I could see why, only moving to "per song" sales, the revenues would drop to half.
Well, you can only go so far with many things on-board. Yes, you can try to smash everyone with a 36" 4-legged robot (maximum allowed) but there's probably a battery penalty for playing that game. Same with the jammer, the more power you put on your jammer the more effective it is, but more power consumption.
You case of murdering the other pilots seems extreme, and I agree with some limitations (same as F1, for safety of the pilots and teams you may limit speed, or other stuff), but being a case of jamming, and not being harmful (unless you're planning on killing the pilot from cancer or whatnot). Why not allow people to look around search for techniques that improve the reliability of the device and also cases of autonomy where the system maybe completely disconnected.
I'm not saying it should be the rule for all (particularly for beginners), but perhaps an advanced level. And yes, of course limit the weapons by penalizing collateral damage (by your standards/examples, it appears that you'd expect robots carrying nukes and I sincerely don't agree with that).
You see, to me the issue is that you can now crunch a lot of data and have computer analyze all possible combinations of plays, possibly hash them and store them altogether with the probability of winning (which was calculated at the end of all possible combinations starting with a particular move).
Then for a game, it's very likely easy to go check a table with the higher winning probability (which may, by the way be 1), and use that move next.
Look up table
Repeat
The valid moves are not unlimited, and certainly you can focus only on high probability values and discard others to save some storage.
The dual mirror is easier... because requires no screen flipping. But you're right, if you get to fiddle with the device (phone) and flip the screen contents, then a single mirror is better as there's less light losses.
Also, if you still want to go for that Graduate Degree... try looking the IT departments at a university you find interesting. You can probably start your graduate course work thanks to the university's benefits.
I think your analogy is a bit off. Try a hit and run, and now replace de victim with a (put your minority here). And you see someone can make it look a hate crime, when it necessarily was. The moment you put the person in. the same condition (both inside the car), make it more easy to pass it as accident because both were affected.
Well... Not exactly. He's not copying anything. He's just pointing to where you can find the copies.
So yes, it could be like a blog saying "hey... why going to the museum if you can find see some lithography at the library or even buy it at the bookstore"
No, because if people have no money and it's careless enough to not pay insurance/taxes/etc. Then probably will carry the can and who knows what's the next accident waiting to happen.
It needs to be taken into consideration, because if you put a rule in place there will be a couple of people trying to bypass it and the consequences of the "bypass" need to be carefully analyzed. Such as black markets, and/or reckless people carrying flammable products around.
Agree. Like I care to get coffee for the taste. If I want something tasty, very likely it will be a smoothie or plain juice. I wonder if Starbucks has statistics about the consumption of decaf?
Well, my way of thinking is that, what doesn't make sense at all, is that normally in data centers, you convert AC to DC, then to AC again, then to DC again.
Yes... many data centers these days have UPS. So my guess is that should be more efficient to get the DC right from the batteries somehow to avoid the losses of having those two extra conversions. So agreeing with your comment, I assume it would be efficient to have small UPS systems (rectifiers and batteries) per rack (or per small group of racks), to minimize the dual conversion.
I'd assume also that if you need 12V you could be able to optimize and grab from a single battery, if you need higher from two batteries, etc. And/or make small voltage cells so you can redistribute the load from each battery in a better way. So you have an efficient conversion and battery support in case of outages.
You see, the problem is that you go back to claiming this is theft.
Wouldn't it be different if instead you have a sign that says "Here is a window where you can look through and see Monet without paying the museum entrance".
Wait for the cameras with 4 sec yellows to start measuring speed, and you'll see many people that pushes the gas when they realize the "may make it" and may not be safe to stop. Actually, my first thought is that most of the speeding tickets these cameras will come up with are spiking drivers trying not to step on the breaks when they see yellow.
Do you realize that wireless customers "pay" for air time. So if you don't have an unlimited voice plan, even calling a 1800 (allegedly free) counts against your plan? anyways, The parent's clarification seems important, as in many countries the caller is the one carrying the cost of the call, and therefore robocallers and telemarketers don't end up costing you for receiving their calls.
See, I came to the comments for the same reason. Of course lack of education ends in you having to steal (even kill) when you can't find a job to support your activities (namely, family, drugs or whatever). But also this is not the reason the penal system is full with them, but also because they cannot afford a pool of lawyers to keep them out of there, as the bankers do.
You see, I think the main failure is thinking that this is something for the photography experts. No, this, to me, if for all those taking candid shots in a party, that later realize half og the pictures are out of focus because they see through a cheap viewfinder our a poor rendering from a cellphone's display and failed to see the pictures are out of focus. Professional photographers who know what to frame and focus and do it really fast through the viewfinder of a professional camera may not be the primary target of systems aimed at simplifying picture taking.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds like an awesome idea.
I hope the next massive trojan, doesn't start "visiting" these websites, and of course, it won't infect congressmen or even the president's computer.
Because if it infects regular citizens... I guess many people is going to land jail. Great next trick and seems easier than "planting" child porn on people's computers.
I'm sorry you didn't get modded up.... at least funny. Noticing that based on Fourier you can describe most likely any song as a sum of sines and cosines with Pi as that frequency factor... yes.. it's inevitable that the sampling is related to Pi. I think the RIAA will switch to deg-radians instead of radians. Maybe even g-radians just to make it more interesting.
I don't think you have it right. The fact that the companies don't charge you for "in their network" calls, doesn't mean you are not charged. I'm not sure they got into any agreement (must of my friends are on the same operator), but I'm almost sure, I was charged (or minutes discounted from my plan) whenever I called someone on another network.
the "we don't charge you if you call within the network or we don't charge you if you call 5 friends, is part of the service plan, and not a standard feature. You probably need to go and get a pre paid phone and realize what they really charge for when you're not on one of their plans.
Nah. I think this is just Foxconn PR to make people believe that living in caves is the best their employees can have and an awesome green environment. Next, they will say, they even have caves for their workers in their factories. Kiddiiing! ;-)
And I won't be critic to your choices. You may hear the whole album and think is good or some songs may just grow in you later. I just don't think it's the overall mentality nowadays and people, having the opportunity of paying for a single song they want, to go ahead and buy the full album.
My point being that having the chance of buying just a couple of songs (and I'd assume most of the time just one), may lead to people just not buying the whole album. I'm thinking for each person that stop buying the whole album and enjoys only half of it, there needs to be at least 5 more people that buys a single song, or another that buys half of it to make for the revenue.
This math... seems to be overly simplified, but may show a drop in revenue without even including piracy in the picture.
Also, I used to buy CDs for about $15, some of them contained as low as 9 songs, 5 of them that I didn't want in first place. So I was paying about $7 of unnecessary overhead, and songs weren't cheaper than $1. I could see why, only moving to "per song" sales, the revenues would drop to half.
Well, you can only go so far with many things on-board. Yes, you can try to smash everyone with a 36" 4-legged robot (maximum allowed) but there's probably a battery penalty for playing that game. Same with the jammer, the more power you put on your jammer the more effective it is, but more power consumption.
You case of murdering the other pilots seems extreme, and I agree with some limitations (same as F1, for safety of the pilots and teams you may limit speed, or other stuff), but being a case of jamming, and not being harmful (unless you're planning on killing the pilot from cancer or whatnot). Why not allow people to look around search for techniques that improve the reliability of the device and also cases of autonomy where the system maybe completely disconnected.
I'm not saying it should be the rule for all (particularly for beginners), but perhaps an advanced level. And yes, of course limit the weapons by penalizing collateral damage (by your standards/examples, it appears that you'd expect robots carrying nukes and I sincerely don't agree with that).
Actually, it is... but then again wasn't that the way some other country allegedly recovered a drone?
So if is a realistic game, why not jamming signals, may as well come up with very robust communication schemes or actually improved autonomous robots.
The catch is that probably they will charge you 1million for checked bag... some fees and of course insane prices for food.
How long it takes the round trip again?
You see, to me the issue is that you can now crunch a lot of data and have computer analyze all possible combinations of plays, possibly hash them and store them altogether with the probability of winning (which was calculated at the end of all possible combinations starting with a particular move).
Then for a game, it's very likely easy to go check a table with the higher winning probability (which may, by the way be 1), and use that move next.
Look up table
Repeat
The valid moves are not unlimited, and certainly you can focus only on high probability values and discard others to save some storage.
The dual mirror is easier... because requires no screen flipping. But you're right, if you get to fiddle with the device (phone) and flip the screen contents, then a single mirror is better as there's less light losses.
Nah. They probably just charge more in the EU to cover the extra year of warranty.
Also, if you still want to go for that Graduate Degree... try looking the IT departments at a university you find interesting. You can probably start your graduate course work thanks to the university's benefits.
I think your analogy is a bit off. Try a hit and run, and now replace de victim with a (put your minority here). And you see someone can make it look a hate crime, when it necessarily was. The moment you put the person in. the same condition (both inside the car), make it more easy to pass it as accident because both were affected.
Well... Not exactly. He's not copying anything. He's just pointing to where you can find the copies.
So yes, it could be like a blog saying "hey... why going to the museum if you can find see some lithography at the library or even buy it at the bookstore"
No, because if people have no money and it's careless enough to not pay insurance/taxes/etc. Then probably will carry the can and who knows what's the next accident waiting to happen.
It needs to be taken into consideration, because if you put a rule in place there will be a couple of people trying to bypass it and the consequences of the "bypass" need to be carefully analyzed. Such as black markets, and/or reckless people carrying flammable products around.
Hell, why not making the whole show!?. Transmit everything live, and have a couple of guys commenting on it at the best style of the WWF.
They may even make money out of advertisement.
Agree. Like I care to get coffee for the taste. If I want something tasty, very likely it will be a smoothie or plain juice. I wonder if Starbucks has statistics about the consumption of decaf?
Well, my way of thinking is that, what doesn't make sense at all, is that normally in data centers, you convert AC to DC, then to AC again, then to DC again.
Yes... many data centers these days have UPS. So my guess is that should be more efficient to get the DC right from the batteries somehow to avoid the losses of having those two extra conversions. So agreeing with your comment, I assume it would be efficient to have small UPS systems (rectifiers and batteries) per rack (or per small group of racks), to minimize the dual conversion.
I'd assume also that if you need 12V you could be able to optimize and grab from a single battery, if you need higher from two batteries, etc. And/or make small voltage cells so you can redistribute the load from each battery in a better way. So you have an efficient conversion and battery support in case of outages.
You see, the problem is that you go back to claiming this is theft.
Wouldn't it be different if instead you have a sign that says "Here is a window where you can look through and see Monet without paying the museum entrance".
Wait for the cameras with 4 sec yellows to start measuring speed, and you'll see many people that pushes the gas when they realize the "may make it" and may not be safe to stop. Actually, my first thought is that most of the speeding tickets these cameras will come up with are spiking drivers trying not to step on the breaks when they see yellow.
In other words, investors want high risk returns, without taking the risks.
Do you realize that wireless customers "pay" for air time. So if you don't have an unlimited voice plan, even calling a 1800 (allegedly free) counts against your plan? anyways, The parent's clarification seems important, as in many countries the caller is the one carrying the cost of the call, and therefore robocallers and telemarketers don't end up costing you for receiving their calls.
See, I came to the comments for the same reason. Of course lack of education ends in you having to steal (even kill) when you can't find a job to support your activities (namely, family, drugs or whatever). But also this is not the reason the penal system is full with them, but also because they cannot afford a pool of lawyers to keep them out of there, as the bankers do.
You see, I think the main failure is thinking that this is something for the photography experts. No, this, to me, if for all those taking candid shots in a party, that later realize half og the pictures are out of focus because they see through a cheap viewfinder our a poor rendering from a cellphone's display and failed to see the pictures are out of focus. Professional photographers who know what to frame and focus and do it really fast through the viewfinder of a professional camera may not be the primary target of systems aimed at simplifying picture taking.