That I don't own the data on umpteen computers owned by company X who are hiring the equipment from company Y who rent server racks in facility Z? No, not surprised in the slightest.
You want full control of your data? Own the hardware and don't plug it into the interwebs.
However (in the UK at least) courts cannot impose a fine/sentence based in any way on deterrent value - you'd be punishing person X for the possible future crimes of unrelated persons Y and Z, which isn't legal.
Fusion is already running at a net gain, it's just not economical and doesn't produce a lot of power. The first on-grid fusion station is planned for around 2035, it will actually generate electricity and feed it into the grid, but the cost-per-MW is going to be silly, it's a proof of concept plan. After that the cost should drop as economies of scale kick in - bigger fusion plants are easier and more economical than small ones. I'd estimate we've got about 100 years before fusion is providing most of our energy, so in the meantime we need fission for the big drains (cities, large industrial complexes) and wind/tide/solar to fill in the gaps and reduce the need for fission as much as possible.
+1 Insightful. The computer savvy of Windows users will always be its weakest point, purely because of it's the only interface for "I hate computers" people.
Not forgetting hydro-storage of course, which lets you even out the peaks and troughs of demand with the peaks and troughs of wind generation - it's a popular combination here in Scotland, where we're producing around 30% of the energy we use through wind (although we essentially subsidise the UK's renewable targets as a whole, we've got a low population and a huge amount of open space).
Even if you are, the emission-per-kW rates of large fossil fuel stations are still substantially smaller than an internal combustion engine. Charge them from nuclear and it's far lower.
You can. Set up your own server, hire a few proxies, it's not a huge problem.
Oh...sorry...you meant we should be able to say what we want on somebody else's website and they should never reveal our details...well that's a little different. Tell you what, let's try an experiment, you set up your server and post the details here, then we'll all come along and post what we want, see where that gets you.
Brakes, not breaks. Maybe it breaks, and that would certainly freak the passenger out, but I sense in this case it brakes. When you're driving at a wall braking lets you do it again, breaking doesn't. Subtle distinction I thought should be pointed out.
(This post brought to you by the collective might of the Oblivious Flaw In The Headline Committee, newly formed to point out the obvious flaw and thereby negating 50% of the discussion dealing with grammar and spelling.)
Might be in the US, but it's perfectly legal here - they also use unusually high electricity bills to do the same, and in the winter they simply look for houses without snow on the roof.
Of course, you're going to get false positives from this, such as somebody growing chillies in the attic, which is why the police can't just go breaking down doors, they have to find secondary evidence (eg repeated visits to the property by known drug dealers/users), and then apply for a search warrant.
At the end of the day it's for the courts to decide whether a warrant is justified. Personally I think if your drug dealing/growing activities are visible from the street outside, for whatever reason, then you should have been trying harder and deserve everything you get, and that's coming from someone who uses a little grass.
I can easily imagine a situation where a handler is pretty sure the suspect is armed and saying "now come on, the dog is signalling that you've got a knife, just hand it over" is far safer than attempting to search and/or restrain the suspect, and you'd be amazed at how many people will comply when faced with a dog (yes, I know they can't smell knives, that's not the point!) It's a perfectly valid technique as far as I'm concerned.
Whether this should be allowed as evidence to obtain a warrant, well that's an entirely different matter and is very close to faking evidence in my book. On the flip-side, if a dog on public property is clearly signalling drugs in a bordering house, then yes, I'd certainly accept that as strong evidence in favour of granting a warrant. Dogs can smell drugs, that's why the police use them to search for drugs. Just because they can be trained to do other things is like not investigating someone for CP because the images could have been placed there by someone else.
You mean the "Clever Hans" effect where the handler provides the cues instead of the smell? It's a know issue, both handlers and dogs are trained to try and avoid it.
Hell yeah - I'd be quite happy to see Whedon or Abrams get their hands on it too. Granted, Disney (Pixar in particular) do some good stuff, but I don't see them doing anything more exciting and innovative than a generic explosions/CGI film lacking the script-driven elegance of the earlier, more civilized films. Disney aren't the company I'm looking for. Plus, their scripts are written by committees, to hide their numbers.
There's a difference as far as I'm concerned - when it comes to gaming (and gaming alone) I prefer a locked down ecosystem to help prevent cheating and hacks. Where I want to program a computer etc then yes, open is good, but when there's a competitive network of thousands of people I prefer to know we're all on the same system. Granted, it's nice to be able to play around with consoles, eg Other OS, but when it comes to an hours gaming of an evening I'm quite happy with an XBox360 rather than a more open platform.
Nonsense. It's freely available here: http://www.presstv.ir/ (works for me, I'm in the UK). What they've done is restrict companies who want to re-broadcast it. The original is still there and still accessible.
I disagree, I think it's based on vanity. Greed is when you do something for money or equivalent, but the payoff on having high numbers of friends etc is very difficult to quantify. This is a case of people being asked to justify their department budget, and big numbers will always impress people who need to impress other people by using big numbers.
My main client is always pushing for higher numbers on mailing lists etc and forwarding me "Get loads of new leads!" spam. Whilst it's always good to have more interested subscribers than fewer interested subscribers, I keep trying to explain that the quality of their social networking reach is the most important thing...get it right with 1,000 followers and they'll do a better job on your behalf than 100,000 mostly-fake followers will.
The actual problem here is the value that is placed on having a high number of followers, likes or whatever. Back in the MySpace days this was simply a bunch of teenagers who wanted to claim some vague kudos through having more "friends" than others, but these days the marketing industry has latched on to it and people/companies are placing a real financial value on it. This is a problem - it's a bubble in the making, and when it pops there are going to be some pretty bitter recriminations and a lot of money lost.
So if you want to collect lots of followers, fine, it's up to you. But if you believe there's any financial value in it then I've got some tulips you may be interested in purchasing as an investment...
Yup - if you've ever wondered how the whole "breaking concrete with your fist" thing works this is a good example. If the impact is hard enough the concrete (bat) takes most of the energy and converts it into heat and breaking electromagnetic bonds (AKA 'breaking'), so the ball falls away limply or your fist doesn't break. Hit it in the wrong place though, and the ball takes all the energy (home run) or your fist does (hospital run).
Slashdot Mirror
That I don't own the data on umpteen computers owned by company X who are hiring the equipment from company Y who rent server racks in facility Z? No, not surprised in the slightest.
You want full control of your data? Own the hardware and don't plug it into the interwebs.
It read "This pigeon is under no circumstances to be shot and eaten, nor allowed near chimneys"
However (in the UK at least) courts cannot impose a fine/sentence based in any way on deterrent value - you'd be punishing person X for the possible future crimes of unrelated persons Y and Z, which isn't legal.
Fusion is already running at a net gain, it's just not economical and doesn't produce a lot of power. The first on-grid fusion station is planned for around 2035, it will actually generate electricity and feed it into the grid, but the cost-per-MW is going to be silly, it's a proof of concept plan. After that the cost should drop as economies of scale kick in - bigger fusion plants are easier and more economical than small ones. I'd estimate we've got about 100 years before fusion is providing most of our energy, so in the meantime we need fission for the big drains (cities, large industrial complexes) and wind/tide/solar to fill in the gaps and reduce the need for fission as much as possible.
+1 Insightful. The computer savvy of Windows users will always be its weakest point, purely because of it's the only interface for "I hate computers" people.
Next time try targetting 127.0.0.1 - it's a far easier target.
Not forgetting hydro-storage of course, which lets you even out the peaks and troughs of demand with the peaks and troughs of wind generation - it's a popular combination here in Scotland, where we're producing around 30% of the energy we use through wind (although we essentially subsidise the UK's renewable targets as a whole, we've got a low population and a huge amount of open space).
Even if you are, the emission-per-kW rates of large fossil fuel stations are still substantially smaller than an internal combustion engine. Charge them from nuclear and it's far lower.
Switching to EV's might also reduce hurricanes which flood EV's in New Jersey. Just sayin'.
You can. Set up your own server, hire a few proxies, it's not a huge problem.
Oh...sorry...you meant we should be able to say what we want on somebody else's website and they should never reveal our details...well that's a little different. Tell you what, let's try an experiment, you set up your server and post the details here, then we'll all come along and post what we want, see where that gets you.
Brakes, not breaks. Maybe it breaks, and that would certainly freak the passenger out, but I sense in this case it brakes. When you're driving at a wall braking lets you do it again, breaking doesn't. Subtle distinction I thought should be pointed out.
(This post brought to you by the collective might of the Oblivious Flaw In The Headline Committee, newly formed to point out the obvious flaw and thereby negating 50% of the discussion dealing with grammar and spelling.)
Might be in the US, but it's perfectly legal here - they also use unusually high electricity bills to do the same, and in the winter they simply look for houses without snow on the roof.
Of course, you're going to get false positives from this, such as somebody growing chillies in the attic, which is why the police can't just go breaking down doors, they have to find secondary evidence (eg repeated visits to the property by known drug dealers/users), and then apply for a search warrant.
At the end of the day it's for the courts to decide whether a warrant is justified. Personally I think if your drug dealing/growing activities are visible from the street outside, for whatever reason, then you should have been trying harder and deserve everything you get, and that's coming from someone who uses a little grass.
I can easily imagine a situation where a handler is pretty sure the suspect is armed and saying "now come on, the dog is signalling that you've got a knife, just hand it over" is far safer than attempting to search and/or restrain the suspect, and you'd be amazed at how many people will comply when faced with a dog (yes, I know they can't smell knives, that's not the point!) It's a perfectly valid technique as far as I'm concerned.
Whether this should be allowed as evidence to obtain a warrant, well that's an entirely different matter and is very close to faking evidence in my book. On the flip-side, if a dog on public property is clearly signalling drugs in a bordering house, then yes, I'd certainly accept that as strong evidence in favour of granting a warrant. Dogs can smell drugs, that's why the police use them to search for drugs. Just because they can be trained to do other things is like not investigating someone for CP because the images could have been placed there by someone else.
You mean the "Clever Hans" effect where the handler provides the cues instead of the smell? It's a know issue, both handlers and dogs are trained to try and avoid it.
Hell yeah - I'd be quite happy to see Whedon or Abrams get their hands on it too. Granted, Disney (Pixar in particular) do some good stuff, but I don't see them doing anything more exciting and innovative than a generic explosions/CGI film lacking the script-driven elegance of the earlier, more civilized films. Disney aren't the company I'm looking for. Plus, their scripts are written by committees, to hide their numbers.
Just you wait until they do another Christmas Special, then you'll be sorry.
There's a difference as far as I'm concerned - when it comes to gaming (and gaming alone) I prefer a locked down ecosystem to help prevent cheating and hacks. Where I want to program a computer etc then yes, open is good, but when there's a competitive network of thousands of people I prefer to know we're all on the same system. Granted, it's nice to be able to play around with consoles, eg Other OS, but when it comes to an hours gaming of an evening I'm quite happy with an XBox360 rather than a more open platform.
Nonsense. It's freely available here: http://www.presstv.ir/ (works for me, I'm in the UK). What they've done is restrict companies who want to re-broadcast it. The original is still there and still accessible.
I disagree, I think it's based on vanity. Greed is when you do something for money or equivalent, but the payoff on having high numbers of friends etc is very difficult to quantify. This is a case of people being asked to justify their department budget, and big numbers will always impress people who need to impress other people by using big numbers.
My main client is always pushing for higher numbers on mailing lists etc and forwarding me "Get loads of new leads!" spam. Whilst it's always good to have more interested subscribers than fewer interested subscribers, I keep trying to explain that the quality of their social networking reach is the most important thing...get it right with 1,000 followers and they'll do a better job on your behalf than 100,000 mostly-fake followers will.
"if you are interested in similar topic..."
FTFY (+1, funny, incidentally)
Big deal, there's fake people on the internet.
The actual problem here is the value that is placed on having a high number of followers, likes or whatever. Back in the MySpace days this was simply a bunch of teenagers who wanted to claim some vague kudos through having more "friends" than others, but these days the marketing industry has latched on to it and people/companies are placing a real financial value on it. This is a problem - it's a bubble in the making, and when it pops there are going to be some pretty bitter recriminations and a lot of money lost.
So if you want to collect lots of followers, fine, it's up to you. But if you believe there's any financial value in it then I've got some tulips you may be interested in purchasing as an investment...
Of course there's a difference, there has to be otherwise it wouldn't be a democracy!
Oh...hang on....
Not quite.
...is closer to the truth. I need a superpositioned font to do it justice, but hey...
3*2 nope 5*5 nope 3*9 nope 2*4 nope 9*1 nope 7*3 nailed it 6*4 nope 2*9 nope 3*6 nope
Yup - if you've ever wondered how the whole "breaking concrete with your fist" thing works this is a good example. If the impact is hard enough the concrete (bat) takes most of the energy and converts it into heat and breaking electromagnetic bonds (AKA 'breaking'), so the ball falls away limply or your fist doesn't break. Hit it in the wrong place though, and the ball takes all the energy (home run) or your fist does (hospital run).
And I believe all orbits are ellipsis...