Getting funding to image the surface of that planet will be an uphill battle and even if the returned images show undoubted proof of intelligent life, people still won't care.
No, no, no, the public will care, but a quarter of them will believe it was really shot on a soundstage in Nevada.
Hmm. Maybe the whole "Rat Shack" thing is the reason they're changing their name.... Won't work, though. We'll always jokingly refer to it as the Rat Shack.:-)
Dumb name or not, as long as they continue to sell component parts and soldering gun tips, I'll keep going there. They tend to carry the parts that Fry's doesn't and vice versa. If they drop that, I probably won't set foot in one ever again; they quite literally have nothing else of interest to me or anyone I know.
Unfortunately, even this screen shields IE from competition. It is well established that given a dialog that requires them to pick from multiple choices with equal prominence, an uninformed user tends to simply choose the first one. In short, by listing IE first, they are still significantly emphasizing use of their browser. Only random ordering would not be problematic as far as I'm concerned.
The best part from the article was this:
The browsers are listed left-to-right in order of market share, with IE therefore having pride of place.
Yet depending on the site you ask, some sites show Internet Explorer at much lower market share than FireFox. W3Schools, for example. Let's not make this anything other than what it is: Microsoft lists their browser first to make it more likely that people will choose their browser, period. It has nothing to do with IE's market share except insofar as it is an attempt to retain it.
That's not really feasible for lots of reasons, starting with the fact that thousands of apps use the IE rendering engine for displaying help content and other web content. It isn't possible to remove the engine without breaking all of those apps, and it isn't feasible to expect other browsers to conform to a programming API sufficiently to make it feasible for multiple engines to be supported for those purposes. You can certainly make it possible to remove the browser, but that basically means removing a tiny thin browser shell that's probably only tens of kilobytes of code. In other words, it's a pointless token gesture.
It depends on how the keyboard is matrixed, I suppose, but you have to have more than three-key handling or you wouldn't be able to detect people holding down the four or five modifier keys and pressing a key... not to mention that you'd have certain combinations of single modifiers with single keys that couldn't be detected at all....:-)
With any keyboard encoder, you should be able to get at least 8 buttons or so even without any sharing or reprogramming. If you matrix the joystick in an interesting way to rule out absurd combinations (you can't push the stick up and down at the same time, for example), you can probably go even higher. How many controls do you need?
That's a red herring. Unless they have changed recently, the internal keyboards on Mac laptops are dumb devices---just a bunch of wires and switches. The controller is on the logic board.
Unless something changed very recently, Mac OS X does not support using filesystem kernel extensions as boot devices, and the booter has no mechanism for extending it to read new filesystems, either. Thus, if it isn't linked into the kernel and understood by EFI, you can't boot from it. That pretty much puts the kibosh on ext4 except as a shared data partition, and if you do that, you might as well use MacFUSE and never have to touch the Mac OS X kernel at all....
Well, maybe, maybe not. One could reasonably argue that someone should screen calls to avoid what I like to call the "idiot boss who thinks everything is an emergency" problem.:-)
What the heck are you talking about? I never said you would surround the picocell with a Faraday cage. I said you would surround the quiet zone with a Faraday cage. The cell phones would be inside the cage with the picocell. The cage would block the phone from talking to outside towers, meaning that the only tower your phone would see would be the "emergency calls only" picocell. I'm talking about a building construction technique that could be applied to new buildings, and as for why you should do so, that's pretty simple. People will gladly pay more for tickets to not have teenagers talking on the phone and texting each other through the whole movie.... Just saying.
willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity;
I see no reason that file sharing would not easily meet that criteria, particularly if you are so anti-corporation that you try to claim a fair use defense because you are only distributing fragments of a file....
Actually, I would be a fan if theaters, libraries, and decent restaurants were allowed to have jammers.
That's a terrible idea. What if the call coming in is "Your father just had a heart attack and we're rushing him to the hospital"? Not to mention the problem of being unable to call 911 in an emergency, the problem of first responders suddenly being unable to go to movies or restaurants, etc. There are very good reasons why jammers are illegal. They aren't the right solution. The right solution is to force cell network operators to allow businesses to run custom picocell or nanocell systems that tell the cell network when a phone enters a quiet zone.
Outgoing call: only calls to 911 (or local equivalent) are allowed
Incoming call: computer at your phone company picks up after one ring and says "The cell phone you dialed is in a quiet zone. If this is an emergency call, please press one. Otherwise, please stay on the line and your call will be redirected to voice mail." If the person presses 1, the picocell determines the name of the person and performs an active ping to determine the exact location of the phone. Then, it notifies the owner of the picocell, who takes the phone call and writes down the message and a callback number. An usher then walks over to the person and gives him/her the note.
Then, you surround the quiet zone with a proper Faraday cage so that the picocell doesn't bleed out into the street and the outside cell towers don't bleed into the quiet zone.
For an added bonus, you could make it so that after the usher finds the person and the person leaves the quiet zone, the cell network automatically detects the phone, rings it, and routes the call to that person, eliminating the need for a callback (handoff failures notwithstanding).
How could you not know that a book written in 1949 is under copyright? Unless the author did something stupid like fail to renew the copyright or publish it without a copyright notice, it's not in the public domain unless it was published before 1923 or the author died before 1939.. The publication date misses by 26 years, and the death date misses by 35 years. It's not even marginally close....
I could believe that Amazon didn't check into their supplier to make sure they had obtained all the rights for the books they were selling, but I have a hard time believing that a copyright attorney of even moderate competence would mistakenly believe that 1984 was in the public domain.
True enough, but with 3D, you have to factor in a lot of costs beyond the equipment cost itself. For example, you can get away with crappy sets if your camera always points in only a couple of directions and has no depth. That background showing a field behind the window suddenly looks like crap in 3D.
No, no, no. In the video space, porn makes or breaks new technology.... Until the porn girls look sufficiently attractive in 3D high definition, the medium won't go anywhere. Not making a value judgment here, just describing reality.
Yeah, a friend of mine is playing the Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz at Cabrillo College, and a bunch of us went to see it on Sunday. Apparently, it is bleeding into my Slashdot postings....
Only if you assume that they don't take any steps at all to accommodate the extended usage. There's no reason they couldn't reinstall the EDO (Extended Duration Orbiter) hardware in Endeavour and fill the cargo bay with pallets. That would take care of the scrubber problem almost indefinitely, and even with only two EDO pallets, you'd have enough power for over a month at full power. With a whole bay full of tanks... probably years. At minimum power with scrubbers used only when people are aboard, the power should last longer still.
How many hundred canisters could you stack in the cargo bay? I think if I were trying to solve this, I'd take the shuttle, build an empty SpaceLab module, fill half of it with fuel cells and half of it with additional tanks for the OMS engines. Fill all the sleeping quarters with filter canisters since nobody would be sleeping on the shuttle anyway. Add power connectors on the outside of the module so you could crack the CBDs and use it as an auxiliary power source for the station if things went wrong....
I've always described this effect with the axiom, "People who feel the need to call themselves experts rarely are. The same can be said for those who call themselves professionals." I'm glad somebody finally got around to studying this effect and giving it a name.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no, no, the public will care, but a quarter of them will believe it was really shot on a soundstage in Nevada.
If they really did that, it was years after they intimidated Auto Shack to rename itself Auto Zone.
At least Rat Shack doesn't abuse design patents to try to stifle competition.
Hmm. Maybe the whole "Rat Shack" thing is the reason they're changing their name.... Won't work, though. We'll always jokingly refer to it as the Rat Shack. :-)
Dumb name or not, as long as they continue to sell component parts and soldering gun tips, I'll keep going there. They tend to carry the parts that Fry's doesn't and vice versa. If they drop that, I probably won't set foot in one ever again; they quite literally have nothing else of interest to me or anyone I know.
Don't forget 666chan.... I suppose the devil's in the details, though.
Unfortunately, even this screen shields IE from competition. It is well established that given a dialog that requires them to pick from multiple choices with equal prominence, an uninformed user tends to simply choose the first one. In short, by listing IE first, they are still significantly emphasizing use of their browser. Only random ordering would not be problematic as far as I'm concerned.
The best part from the article was this:
Yet depending on the site you ask, some sites show Internet Explorer at much lower market share than FireFox. W3Schools, for example. Let's not make this anything other than what it is: Microsoft lists their browser first to make it more likely that people will choose their browser, period. It has nothing to do with IE's market share except insofar as it is an attempt to retain it.
That's not really feasible for lots of reasons, starting with the fact that thousands of apps use the IE rendering engine for displaying help content and other web content. It isn't possible to remove the engine without breaking all of those apps, and it isn't feasible to expect other browsers to conform to a programming API sufficiently to make it feasible for multiple engines to be supported for those purposes. You can certainly make it possible to remove the browser, but that basically means removing a tiny thin browser shell that's probably only tens of kilobytes of code. In other words, it's a pointless token gesture.
It depends on how the keyboard is matrixed, I suppose, but you have to have more than three-key handling or you wouldn't be able to detect people holding down the four or five modifier keys and pressing a key... not to mention that you'd have certain combinations of single modifiers with single keys that couldn't be detected at all.... :-)
With any keyboard encoder, you should be able to get at least 8 buttons or so even without any sharing or reprogramming. If you matrix the joystick in an interesting way to rule out absurd combinations (you can't push the stick up and down at the same time, for example), you can probably go even higher. How many controls do you need?
That's a red herring. Unless they have changed recently, the internal keyboards on Mac laptops are dumb devices---just a bunch of wires and switches. The controller is on the logic board.
Unless something changed very recently, Mac OS X does not support using filesystem kernel extensions as boot devices, and the booter has no mechanism for extending it to read new filesystems, either. Thus, if it isn't linked into the kernel and understood by EFI, you can't boot from it. That pretty much puts the kibosh on ext4 except as a shared data partition, and if you do that, you might as well use MacFUSE and never have to touch the Mac OS X kernel at all....
Well, maybe, maybe not. One could reasonably argue that someone should screen calls to avoid what I like to call the "idiot boss who thinks everything is an emergency" problem. :-)
What the heck are you talking about? I never said you would surround the picocell with a Faraday cage. I said you would surround the quiet zone with a Faraday cage. The cell phones would be inside the cage with the picocell. The cage would block the phone from talking to outside towers, meaning that the only tower your phone would see would be the "emergency calls only" picocell. I'm talking about a building construction technique that could be applied to new buildings, and as for why you should do so, that's pretty simple. People will gladly pay more for tickets to not have teenagers talking on the phone and texting each other through the whole movie.... Just saying.
Then I think you missed one:
I see no reason that file sharing would not easily meet that criteria, particularly if you are so anti-corporation that you try to claim a fair use defense because you are only distributing fragments of a file....
That's a terrible idea. What if the call coming in is "Your father just had a heart attack and we're rushing him to the hospital"? Not to mention the problem of being unable to call 911 in an emergency, the problem of first responders suddenly being unable to go to movies or restaurants, etc. There are very good reasons why jammers are illegal. They aren't the right solution. The right solution is to force cell network operators to allow businesses to run custom picocell or nanocell systems that tell the cell network when a phone enters a quiet zone.
Then, you surround the quiet zone with a proper Faraday cage so that the picocell doesn't bleed out into the street and the outside cell towers don't bleed into the quiet zone.
For an added bonus, you could make it so that after the usher finds the person and the person leaves the quiet zone, the cell network automatically detects the phone, rings it, and routes the call to that person, eliminating the need for a callback (handoff failures notwithstanding).
How could you not know that a book written in 1949 is under copyright? Unless the author did something stupid like fail to renew the copyright or publish it without a copyright notice, it's not in the public domain unless it was published before 1923 or the author died before 1939.. The publication date misses by 26 years, and the death date misses by 35 years. It's not even marginally close....
I could believe that Amazon didn't check into their supplier to make sure they had obtained all the rights for the books they were selling, but I have a hard time believing that a copyright attorney of even moderate competence would mistakenly believe that 1984 was in the public domain.
True enough, but with 3D, you have to factor in a lot of costs beyond the equipment cost itself. For example, you can get away with crappy sets if your camera always points in only a couple of directions and has no depth. That background showing a field behind the window suddenly looks like crap in 3D.
Doing well, AFAICT.
No, no, no. In the video space, porn makes or breaks new technology.... Until the porn girls look sufficiently attractive in 3D high definition, the medium won't go anywhere. Not making a value judgment here, just describing reality.
I swear, officer, I didn't see him.
Yeah, a friend of mine is playing the Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz at Cabrillo College, and a bunch of us went to see it on Sunday. Apparently, it is bleeding into my Slashdot postings....
Survival is a terrible metric of intelligence. By that standard, lions and tigers and bears are the most intelligent species on the planet.
Only if you assume that they don't take any steps at all to accommodate the extended usage. There's no reason they couldn't reinstall the EDO (Extended Duration Orbiter) hardware in Endeavour and fill the cargo bay with pallets. That would take care of the scrubber problem almost indefinitely, and even with only two EDO pallets, you'd have enough power for over a month at full power. With a whole bay full of tanks... probably years. At minimum power with scrubbers used only when people are aboard, the power should last longer still.
So yeah, two months seems pretty cynical to me.
Soyuz capsules, of course. Same way everybody else on the station gets back to Earth.
How many hundred canisters could you stack in the cargo bay? I think if I were trying to solve this, I'd take the shuttle, build an empty SpaceLab module, fill half of it with fuel cells and half of it with additional tanks for the OMS engines. Fill all the sleeping quarters with filter canisters since nobody would be sleeping on the shuttle anyway. Add power connectors on the outside of the module so you could crack the CBDs and use it as an auxiliary power source for the station if things went wrong....
Wow. And I thought I was cynical about the shuttle....
132.155.125.74.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer px-in-f132.google.com.
That said, who wants to bet we can find a google cache of goatse?
I've always described this effect with the axiom, "People who feel the need to call themselves experts rarely are. The same can be said for those who call themselves professionals." I'm glad somebody finally got around to studying this effect and giving it a name.