It just looks like a divide by 12 counter to me. All it does is takes the clock signal and makes it happen 12x less frequently. I don't see how it could be considered a cpu at all.
Mechanically it a very cool toy, but when trying to use it to explain the inner workings of a cpu it kind of falls flat.
I am not sure if you are including this situation in your thinking. The logical move is to find alternative pesticides that do not harm the bees. Bees pollinate our crops in most areas of the world. We need them.
The logical move is to actually do a study before announcing that the pesticide is destroying bee colonies. Once we decide to start looking for an alternative to something that isn't proven to be doing harm we take away resources that could be used to find the real problem if it turns out our initial assumption was wrong. While we are all busy looking for a bee friendly pesticide we could be ignoring a fungus or a mite, giving them time to do even more damage.
Considering the importance of bees to agriculture, I think the potential of any link between pesticides and colony collapses warrants both extreme concern and funding.
But hey, maybe you're looking forward to do the day we eat nothing but algal cultures or soylent green.
I'm looking forward to the day when we use logic and reason instead of emotion and fear to get science funding and sway public opinion.
Sounds to me like he didn't so much "win" as was "paid for a commercial". This is going to attract tons of people who think they can do the same thing. They will make their money back 10 fold thanks to him.
I've also found it to be the most lightweight unobtrusive AV out there.
Until it starts shouting "VIRUS DATABASE HAS BEEN UPDATED!" at you randomly throughout the night at high volume. Yes, I know that can be turned off, but it shouldn't be on by default.
If the ISPs start policing copyright policy, would that not cost them their common carrier status and make them liable for all activity on their networks? Any subject matter experts on common carriers present?
You can't lose something you never had. ISPs have never been common carriers.
AT&T isn't really advertising falsely, the data is unlimited. The speeds are limited.
Which means the data is effectively limited as well. If you sell "unlimited plans" and then throttle speeds to the point where downloading 24/7 for a month will only net you 1GB of data, that's not very unlimited is it?
So by that bizarre logic, you're suggesting that ATT is legally obligated to ensure they can sustain 100% of theoretically possible 3G bandwidth at every possible location in their network where there is any viable signal at all?
They are obligated to provide what they advertise. If they can't provide it, they shouldn't advertise it.
I would think that electronically controlled sewage treatment plants are at risk. Most people don't think about where their poo goes, but once it starts going nowhere, it will pile up very quick for communities.
create a smallish video camera that includes a cell/wifi transceiver so that when it records the recording goes both to the local storage and N different "Cloud" services.
a LEO wants to try to prevent something from being seen?? OOPS its already on Youtube and N other services so now he needs to get a court order.
It looks to me that Google is doing exactly what their p3p policy says they will do.
No, it's doing the exact opposite. P3P is a list of things you *WILL USE* the cookie data for, not what you *WILL NOT* do. Per the spec, if it's not a valid tag it gets ignore, remove all the invalid stuff and google is effectively sending P3P="", or in other words, they wont use it for anything.
Then, since Google's p3p policy is sent as just a URL, shouldn't IE be ignoring it since its not valid?
That's exactly what they are doing. Think of the P3P tag as a list of "bad" things the site says it will do. An empty tag says that the site won't do anything bad. Google is abusing the spec by sending an invalid P3P entry that makes it/look/ like they are reporting their cookie use, but the malformed tag gets ignored and looks to the browser like a tag that says "I won't do anything bad". The tag actually says "Here is a URL with a list of all the stuff I will use this cookie for", but spec doesn't define how to parse this so it gets ignored.
My neighbor's dog come into my yard and damage my yard...my neighbor has to pay for restitution
Mosanto pollen come to my yard and modify/damage my plant and its output...Mosanto has to pay for restitution, No ?
Or should it that i have to pay Mosanto for the opportunity of getting my plant screwed up without asking for it ?
Logical legal and patent system please.....please.
Except Monsanto didn't plant it or own the original seed, a neighboring farmer did. If your neighbor's dog digs up your yard, the dog's owner is liable, not the pet store where he bought it.
Then they are lying. The have developed a sterile seed product (the terminator gene). They never commercialized it, but develop it, they did. I wish they commercialized it, then the tainted crops issue would be a 3 generation problem, then over. Gen 1 taints Gen 2, figure about half the crops fail to sprout to gen 3. By gen 3 the genes are so diluted that it is a non issue, maybe 1% of your seed doesn't sprout after that. -nB
A product, in marketing speak, is something you sell (or try to). If it isn't actually for sale then it isn't a product, it's just a research experiment.
If you define theft and stealing as "Acquiring things that don't belong to you", as the vast majority of people do, then yes, it is theft.
Since no things are acquired in the course of copyright infringement, it isn't theft by the common meaning. It's just a matter of arranging my bits in the same way someone else arranged theirs.
Copyright infringement can allow you to acquire knowledge and experiences (books, movies, etc...) that you wouldn't otherwise have.
How "the vast majority of people" define theft is irrelevant to a court and equally irrelevant to a discussion on the law of copyright. Insisting on your populist definition in these inappropriate contexts makes it look like you are an ignorant fool.
Good thing the context of this has nothing to do with a court. This is about statements made to the media. In that context the popular definitions makes perfect sense.
If you define theft and stealing as "Acquiring things that don't belong to you", as the vast majority of people do, then yes, it is theft. Quoting the dictionary definition just makes it look like you are playing word games with semantics to justify your actions.
Many people with Androids are not using a single smart-phone feature. I guarantee you that every iPhone user is using a smart-phone feature. Apple still may have more smart phones actually used as smart phones than Android.
And that matters why? That's actually GOOD for the carriers as people are paying for data plans they aren't using.
iOS is a port of MacOS X, so if Apple had wanted it, there would have been full unlimited tasking from day one. There's a good reason for the artificial limitations.
That's funny, I thought people bought phones that do what they want, not what the maker of the phone wants.
I don't see how that's fine-worthy. That's the market working. If the consumers of those products are not smart enough to read between the lines, and recognize that building products on top of free services is a bad idea, then Google deserves the win in my book - they bought into a system where they're beholden to someone, and that someone ought to be able to monetize that situation at some point or another.
If people get fed up with Google, and there is a demand for another service, then one will come along and fight them for it - it's not like Google didn't unseat the original kings of search by simply creating a better product.
One of the principles of a free market is that people have perfect information and act rationally on it. If people lack information then it isn't an example of a free market working properly. So no, taking advantage of people who aren't smart enough to read between the lines is not a good example of the market working. It may be profitable, but it isn't a "free market".
So in 20 years, when the Department of Homeland Security conducts an involuntary "health and wellness" check for your residence, it would be in your best interests to think of something "out there," such as a transexual Asian prostitute shooting ping-pong balls out of her ass.
Alright.. so to put it simply, you want me to think about Thursdays... got it.
Slashdot Mirror
It just looks like a divide by 12 counter to me. All it does is takes the clock signal and makes it happen 12x less frequently. I don't see how it could be considered a cpu at all.
Mechanically it a very cool toy, but when trying to use it to explain the inner workings of a cpu it kind of falls flat.
If cold mix asphalt is so great, then what's the advantage of hot mix asphalt?
It lasts longer.
I am not sure if you are including this situation in your thinking. The logical move is to find alternative pesticides that do not harm the bees. Bees pollinate our crops in most areas of the world. We need them.
The logical move is to actually do a study before announcing that the pesticide is destroying bee colonies. Once we decide to start looking for an alternative to something that isn't proven to be doing harm we take away resources that could be used to find the real problem if it turns out our initial assumption was wrong. While we are all busy looking for a bee friendly pesticide we could be ignoring a fungus or a mite, giving them time to do even more damage.
Considering the importance of bees to agriculture, I think the potential of any link between pesticides and colony collapses warrants both extreme concern and funding.
But hey, maybe you're looking forward to do the day we eat nothing but algal cultures or soylent green.
I'm looking forward to the day when we use logic and reason instead of emotion and fear to get science funding and sway public opinion.
So once they all have it, it'll be normal right? Then we can stop overdiagnosing it and get back to life.
The house doesn't like to lose.
Sounds to me like he didn't so much "win" as was "paid for a commercial". This is going to attract tons of people who think they can do the same thing. They will make their money back 10 fold thanks to him.
I've also found it to be the most lightweight unobtrusive AV out there.
Until it starts shouting "VIRUS DATABASE HAS BEEN UPDATED!" at you randomly throughout the night at high volume. Yes, I know that can be turned off, but it shouldn't be on by default.
If the ISPs start policing copyright policy, would that not cost them their common carrier status and make them liable for all activity on their networks? Any subject matter experts on common carriers present?
You can't lose something you never had. ISPs have never been common carriers.
Which means the data is effectively limited as well. If you sell "unlimited plans" and then throttle speeds to the point where downloading 24/7 for a month will only net you 1GB of data, that's not very unlimited is it?
So by that bizarre logic, you're suggesting that ATT is legally obligated to ensure they can sustain 100% of theoretically possible 3G bandwidth at every possible location in their network where there is any viable signal at all?
They are obligated to provide what they advertise. If they can't provide it, they shouldn't advertise it.
I would think that electronically controlled sewage treatment plants are at risk. Most people don't think about where their poo goes, but once it starts going nowhere, it will pile up very quick for communities.
That's alright, I live on top of a hill.
create a smallish video camera that includes a cell/wifi transceiver so that when it records the recording goes both to the local storage and N different "Cloud" services.
a LEO wants to try to prevent something from being seen?? OOPS its already on Youtube and N other services so now he needs to get a court order.
Behold my new invention, the" smart phone".
Let me guess. This is how IE code looks like
[...]
SecuritySettings s= new SecuritySettings();
try {
s.allowCookied= true;
parseP3P(header, s); /* NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!!111one */ }
} catch (Exception e) {
[...]
IE is correctly parsing the P3P data according to the spec. The problem is that the spec has a giant hole it it that Google is abusing.
It looks to me that Google is doing exactly what their p3p policy says they will do.
No, it's doing the exact opposite. P3P is a list of things you *WILL USE* the cookie data for, not what you *WILL NOT* do. Per the spec, if it's not a valid tag it gets ignore, remove all the invalid stuff and google is effectively sending P3P="", or in other words, they wont use it for anything.
Then, since Google's p3p policy is sent as just a URL, shouldn't IE be ignoring it since its not valid?
That's exactly what they are doing. Think of the P3P tag as a list of "bad" things the site says it will do. An empty tag says that the site won't do anything bad. Google is abusing the spec by sending an invalid P3P entry that makes it /look/ like they are reporting their cookie use, but the malformed tag gets ignored and looks to the browser like a tag that says "I won't do anything bad". The tag actually says "Here is a URL with a list of all the stuff I will use this cookie for", but spec doesn't define how to parse this so it gets ignored.
At least that's my understanding.
My neighbor's dog come into my yard and damage my yard...my neighbor has to pay for restitution
Mosanto pollen come to my yard and modify/damage my plant and its output...Mosanto has to pay for restitution, No ?
Or should it that i have to pay Mosanto for the opportunity of getting my plant screwed up without asking for it ?
Logical legal and patent system please.....please .
Except Monsanto didn't plant it or own the original seed, a neighboring farmer did. If your neighbor's dog digs up your yard, the dog's owner is liable, not the pet store where he bought it.
Then they are lying.
The have developed a sterile seed product (the terminator gene). They never commercialized it, but develop it, they did.
I wish they commercialized it, then the tainted crops issue would be a 3 generation problem, then over.
Gen 1 taints Gen 2, figure about half the crops fail to sprout to gen 3. By gen 3 the genes are so diluted that it is a non issue, maybe 1% of your seed doesn't sprout after that.
-nB
A product, in marketing speak, is something you sell (or try to). If it isn't actually for sale then it isn't a product, it's just a research experiment.
I'm always torn on this kind of stuff.
On one hand, I think parents should be able to chose what is best for their children.
Yes, they should be able to choose what is best, but by choosing not to vaccinate they are not choosing best, they are choosing stupid.
Since no things are acquired in the course of copyright infringement, it isn't theft by the common meaning. It's just a matter of arranging my bits in the same way someone else arranged theirs.
Copyright infringement can allow you to acquire knowledge and experiences (books, movies, etc...) that you wouldn't otherwise have.
You should be so lucky to have such a layman preside over your next legal encounter.
This is about statements made to the media not a court room.
How "the vast majority of people" define theft is irrelevant to a court and equally irrelevant to a discussion on the law of copyright. Insisting on your populist definition in these inappropriate contexts makes it look like you are an ignorant fool.
Good thing the context of this has nothing to do with a court. This is about statements made to the media. In that context the popular definitions makes perfect sense.
If you define theft and stealing as "Acquiring things that don't belong to you", as the vast majority of people do, then yes, it is theft. Quoting the dictionary definition just makes it look like you are playing word games with semantics to justify your actions.
Many people with Androids are not using a single smart-phone feature. I guarantee you that every iPhone user is using a smart-phone feature. Apple still may have more smart phones actually used as smart phones than Android.
And that matters why? That's actually GOOD for the carriers as people are paying for data plans they aren't using.
iOS is a port of MacOS X, so if Apple had wanted it, there would have been full unlimited tasking from day one. There's a good reason for the artificial limitations.
That's funny, I thought people bought phones that do what they want, not what the maker of the phone wants.
I don't see how that's fine-worthy. That's the market working. If the consumers of those products are not smart enough to read between the lines, and recognize that building products on top of free services is a bad idea, then Google deserves the win in my book - they bought into a system where they're beholden to someone, and that someone ought to be able to monetize that situation at some point or another.
If people get fed up with Google, and there is a demand for another service, then one will come along and fight them for it - it's not like Google didn't unseat the original kings of search by simply creating a better product.
One of the principles of a free market is that people have perfect information and act rationally on it. If people lack information then it isn't an example of a free market working properly. So no, taking advantage of people who aren't smart enough to read between the lines is not a good example of the market working. It may be profitable, but it isn't a "free market".
MegaUpload - piracy = ???
ERROR: Integer Undeflow
Alright.. so to put it simply, you want me to think about Thursdays... got it.