Wrong. Entirely wrong in fact. You should read the Handbook of Applied Cryptography (kindly made available online here [uwaterloo.ca]). See e.g. section 4.3. Proving a 2048-bit number is prime (I think you mean 2x 1,024-bit numbers, but....) should take a minute or two - not excessive for a one-off operation!
You aren't "proving" it. Miller-Rabin is a probabilistic algorithm. It doesn't guarantee anything (unless it indicates that the number is composite - non prime).
Not to detract from Miguel and the Mono team here, but I can't help but think that there has to be a hidden message in the image he used for a screen shot... I can't quite put my finger on it...
SCSI drives are notorious for their noise, heat and vibration levels. These low points are not acceptable at the consumer level. Noise and heat don't matter too much in huge server rooms, but they can quickly become a problem in desktops.
For the time being, IDE isn't going anywhere. NOISE & HEAT will tend to outweigh (relatively) minor performance gains in consumer systems. (Enterprise hardware is another matter entirely) sigh....we need to start using those annoying javascripts that make people read the article BEFORE posting.
Absolutely. But this has nothing to do with SCSI, it has to do with the high spindle speeds at the bleeding edge. The card on the underside of the drive is not making that ear shattering racket. They even acknowledge that in your quote.
SCSI is better than ATA. Even SATA. ATA has been trying to catch up by stealing some of the best parts of SCSI (like TCQ). But it just isn't quite as good yet. Quite frankly, I agree with the majority of SCSI zealots: if the damn PC makers would embrace SCSI, then the cost of SCSI would come down to near parity from the volume of sales.
Now, is SCSI better for your average Joe? Maybe not significantly. Neither is 7200 vs 5400, 2MB vs 8MB buffers, or 8.9 vs 9.1 ms access times.
However, if they could use one cable to connect 15 devices in their tower, they'd be alot happier than having the 8 cables they'd need to do it with current IDE tech (let alone IDE's relative inability to be used externally).
There are a number of reasons to be worried about HD reliability:
1. As the fly height gets lower (generally a requisite of higher data density), the chances of a head crash increase (or if there is any dust or other particulate matter, the chances of the head turning into a record needle).
2. Higher data density = less area consumed for a bit = easier for data to be lost.
3. Higher track density = more probability that the head can go off track and write too close to (or over) adjacent tracks (yes, this can happen, and I guarantee it does on at least a yearly basis to someone you know).
Combine this with thin margins (and corresponding decreases in funding to QA and good suppliers/mfg), and you have a recipe for disaster.
Plopping into a chair produces a very short pulse at 10G. That duration is key here. Most people will pass out in prolonged exposure to 10G.
Most "injuries" related to non-bruising/bone breaking G-forces are from blood deprevation. A really long, tight turn may be enough to deprive your brain of enough blood flow to cause you (or someone with poor circulation to start out with) to pass out. After passing out, you'll just flop around on the ride, where real injury can occur.
As for direct effects, we of course have the very unscientific number of "healthy patrons" which gives us some comfort with the current state. However, it isn't insane to believe that large exposure to prolonged, high-G roller coasters could pose real health hazards. Imagine if someone built a 10G sled that accelerated you linearly, then radially for say 30 seconds. Most of the people on the ride would have a hard time walking after, and many may have passed out.
Setting reasonable standards isn't a bad thing. If someone wants to build one faster or whatever, they could always file a variance with the locality if they could prove it was safe. This just puts their rides up to (more) public scrutiny.
I think the idea would be to make some attempt to match it's speed, then contact and start the engines firing to push it off course.
Rather than think of it like a car's air bag, think about it as a way to spread out the pressure along the surface of the object. A rocket on the surface of a comet or loosely bound asteroid may just disintegrate the parts, yielding little benefit.
Which is more comfortable to sleep on: a pillow or the blunt end of a pencil?
Notably missing from the posted code is anything capable of recording. It may be that the recorder is a key element missing.
You may be able to compile it, but you won't end up with a PVR.
It looks to me, superficially, as if they are doing *exactly* what is required and nothing more. You can't fault them for that, their value add is the recording facility. If they give that away, there is little for them to build a business model on other than a Tivo'esque subscription.
Of course, as these make it into geek hands, and they are opened up and inspected, we will get a better idea as to whether they are being as compliant as they appear.
Near the end of the comparison document is a section that was hand optimized in assembly. The only differences are the names of the registers, and a few things are reversed.
That, to me, is the most damning of all the evidence. Directory structure: oh, we were inspired by their structure. Compiled code: optimization conincidence. But coming up with a hand optimized assembly code of that length, and having it accidentally that close - not in a million years.
Well, technically, you might be able to get away with one. Just have the orbit be really deep, and you can see the satellite constantly.
A few factors come into play here.
If they are at the axial pole (as opposed to the magnetic pole), any satellite which is far enough from the earth in an equatorial orbit should be continuously visible.
Given a lack of data for the actual curvature of the earth near the pole, I couldn't really give you a good calculation of how deep such an orbit would have to be. It may be too deep to be practical.
Find a reputable consulting firm/group and offer your services as a contract worker to them first. Marketing yourselves directly as independant programmers will be very difficult.
Most companies who are looking for out-sourced programming needs are looking for:
1. Small, one-shot deals (a database, a parser, etc) 2. Maintenance on old code. 3. Supplemental help on a large, in house project without any strings attached.
You will not have time to be an effective programmer and self salesman in a slow economy.
... is really pointless. The argument is: an architect designs a house that doesn't blow over, or a bridge that handles the traffic load without collapsing. However, in these cases, anyone who does something out of the ordinary with the house (fills it with water, tries to open the inside door without opening the screen door), would be laughed at if they called it a design flaw.
Take the usual punching bag for example: IIS. IIS, when used properly, works quite well. You might argue about the functionality/performance/cost compared to [insert favorite httpd], but pass over those arguments for now.
Security is a common complaint for IIS. However, if a person broke into your house by going in through a weak point (a window, the chimney, etc), you wouldn't blame the architect.
Zealots might say that backdoors in software are like using doors without locks. But this is ignoring the fact that software is often not an integration of existing, proven solutions, but an exploration of ways to attack a problem. Also, these failings are plain to the layman, whereas software bugs are often obscure to the guru. You simply cannot have the expectation that software will *NEVER* crash.
An architect has a given set of solutions for common problems (building codes, pre-existing designs, etc). If they can't solve a problem with an existing, proven solution (or a mild derivation of such), they probably wouldn't take on the job. Programmers do not have this luxury. We are inventing these solutions on the fly -- and we will make mistakes.
If this person walks away at this point and takes the counter offer the liklihood of any future opportunity with the potential employer that made the offer is virtually nil.
I don't think I contended that. Perhaps you misinterpreted me, I was talking about an independant recruiter (as I believe the parent was).
Of course the company that offers you a job is going to be irked... they wanted you enough to try to steal you away from someone else. However, they won't be so immature as to try to tar your image in the industry (again, unless they are morons).
It most emphatically is in no way comparable to doing business with a door-to-door salesman.
It is more than you think. You don't ask for a door-to-door salesman to come, (s)he just does, and tries to sell to you (in the case of a recruiter, they are trying to sell you on a job).
Real people will not feel burned (again, unless you abused the process, like making a salesman come and clean your house several times with the vacuum they are selling). They just won't approach you with the same job again. You were interested enough to talk to them, so they will keep you on their contact list.
As for valuing longtime service, that cuts both ways. Stay much longer than 5 years and things can begin working against you, depending on how aggressively you are trying to further your career. Should the unfortunate thing happen and you become unemployed, having been at firm A 15 years won't look nearly as good as having been at firm A three years, firm B five years, firm C four years, and firm D three years, everything else being equal.
I think you were on to something, then ran away from it. If you were at a firm for 15 years, and advanced to a higher position (senior designer, manager, CEO...), I think that any reasonable person would look at that as a far greater indication of your skill than the "breadth" of experience you would get doing entry level work for 5 companies. It is a matter of balance, as if you are in a dead-end position for 15 years, it will look worse than having 4 dead end positions, unless they think that you are a ship-jumper.
one - you can only do this once or twice before they stop giving you pay raises, and each iteration burns a bridge at a potentially new and exciting job, with new and better opportunities for you.
If someone is honestly considering other positions now, what is to prevent them from doing that in the future?
two - if the recruiter gets burned (she or he will lose their commision [likely 30% of your new salary if they're an independent headhunter] if you take the counter-offer) you lose an ally if and when you really do want to switch jobs (you can bet they'll put a black mark in your file, and it will affect the service you get next time around.
By this argument, you should never deny a door-to-door salesman. Most salespeople (and make no mistake, that is what a headhunter is), do not take offense if you refuse their service after their pitch, they will see it as their own failing, not yours. Any headhunter who feels burned (unless you abused them [see below]) is a moron.
three - you'll still be in the same position you were before. No new opportunities, no new challenges, just more money (for now).
However, companies favor employees with longer service records for promotion. True, you threatened to leave, but you chose to stay, giving up the luster of a different company for your company's same old B.S. No manager would look down on you looking to better serve yourself financially. You gave them the chance, which means you really don't want to go elsewhere (or at least have a tolerance for it).
four/five...
see above
six - you should go to the recruiter, tell them about the counter offer, and see if they can't give you a little more. I wouldn't necessarilly get the two sides in a bidding war (that might well leave your new employer with a bad taste in their mouth), but if they can outdo the counter-offer by a little bit, it might go a long way toward making your decision easier.
A valid piece of advice. However, chances are they did make the lowest offer that they thought would lure you away. A short bidding war isn't necessarily a bad thing. If it becomes long and protracted (special benefits package, longer vacation, company car, better parking spot, etc), then you are definitely stretching things.
IMHO if all things are equal, take the new job. The disadvantages I listed above are signficant, and there really would need to be a compelling reason to ignore them and take the counter offer, and having equal pay and the (quite possibly faux) comfort of not changing jobs isn't nearly enough IMHO.
Comfort is an oversimplification, in my book. Really, this is about choosing what is best. Generalization rarely chooses the the optimal solution to a problem. And this is a problem which probably cannot be argued to a solid conclusion as it has a large basis in emotion (do I like my job? Will my employer be mad? etc).
Honestly, I cannot FATHOM that the number of CDR's they claim were seized actually were. Honestly, if 2.8Mega CD's were confiscated, where was the news coverage of the busts? I have never once heard of any of these busts on the news. There would HAVE to be at least a few big hauls of confiscation that would warrant news coverage. Hell, every time someone gets caught smuggling a couple of pounds of pot in, it gets news coverage.
The source of the data is missing from the Yahoo story, does anyone know who's ass this data was pulled from?
You apparently aren't an EE. There are a number of ways to do voltage multiplication without a (large) transformer (technically, you can do it without the XMFR, it just helps).
Here is one way. I'm too lazy to try to find a better link with some theory attached, but if you follow the current path on the voltage swings, you should be able to figure it out.
You seem to be missing the author's point. Most of the time, when you are about to do such an operation, you want to be sure that the commands to be executed are what you expect (for example, if this is going to do something destructive, such as remove files). By using the echo, you can preview the execution, check it off, and just rerun the last command with a pipe.
I had simililar problems with my Epox 8KHA+. Turned out that there appears to be some weird bug in the Via chipsets or the timing setup that causes memory errors (strangely, this was only detected by an old version of memtest86 (2.7), the new bios cleared this up and things are running smoothly). It could be something similar
The force you feel throwing you outward in a curve is exactly that, a force you FEEL. You are feeling your intertia. It is the same as when you accelerate forward in a car (you feel a "force" pushing you down in your seat). You wouldn't call it a "force" when you did this, would you? It is called equal and opposite reaction, something that anyone in any classical physics course should always accept without question.
The page you reference even admits that centriFUGAL force is a fiction of mathematical convenience. However, centripetal acceleration is real (something has to keep you in place). A force has to be responsible for that (as far as I am aware, there is no way to undergo acceleration without a force).
Now, yes, you can invent frames of reference which tend to ignore any acceleration you want. However, in any normal frame of reference, centripetal acceleration does exist, and centrifugal force is merely an experience (you feel your equal and opposite reaction to your centripetal acceleration, and notice that you are drifting away if the centripetal acceleration is lost).
It is basically a Reuter's article, but they aren't covering it up. Just stashing it in the "Technology" section... where it belongs.
Don't get me wrong, I doubt you'll see this bill being discussed on ANY news analysis show. Their bosses don't want the other side to get the airtime. Maybe it is time to start a letter writing campaign to the O'Reilly Factor and Hardball (screw Donahue).
You seem to be confused about who is redefining the word.
Addiction as per Merriam Webster:
compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
Note: they do use the typical recursion for "the quality or state of being addicted" and they use a broader definition as in addicted to gambling. However, this, as I discuss below is a matter of symantics, and is inapplicable to "real" Psychology.
Compulsive: of, relating to, caused by, or suggestive of psychological compulsion or obsession
These are the definitions that are generally used by the Psychology community, whom I would consider a greater authority than you. Internet "addiction" is a compulsion, not an addiction. An addiction requires real treatment, including drugs sometimes, to break. It involves serious functional deficiencies if the addiction is removed. As I stated before, if you were suddenly removed of the Internet, but had something else to keep you busy, you wouldn't even notice (other than a COMPULSION to read your email).
Further, I am not defining it purely as physical addiction, but one that invokes REAL withdrawl symptoms, not just listlessness and boredom. Did you get sick when you were without the Internet? Did you think to do irrational things like steal or kill to get your Internet access back? I didn't think so.
As for replacing a social activity: who says hobbies are solitary? You may play a sport as a hobby, or play cards, or dance. Reading a book was chosen as an example as something that could supplant the reading part of the Internet.
So in summary, the Internet is not addictive. Users can be lulled away with different, shiny things like TV, games, and sex. A person who was truly addicted would go to irrational lengths to get a fix (people who distill their own booze, steal from stores to get drug money, and smoke other people's cigarette butts would be good examples). I seriously doubt that you are so poorly adjusted as to even briefly seriously consider breaking into an ISP to check your email.
Slashdot Mirror
You aren't "proving" it. Miller-Rabin is a probabilistic algorithm. It doesn't guarantee anything (unless it indicates that the number is composite - non prime).
The rest of your post seems correct though.
Not to detract from Miguel and the Mono team here, but I can't help but think that there has to be a hidden message in the image he used for a screen shot... I can't quite put my finger on it...
Oh well <whistles>
Absolutely. But this has nothing to do with SCSI, it has to do with the high spindle speeds at the bleeding edge. The card on the underside of the drive is not making that ear shattering racket. They even acknowledge that in your quote.
SCSI is better than ATA. Even SATA. ATA has been trying to catch up by stealing some of the best parts of SCSI (like TCQ). But it just isn't quite as good yet. Quite frankly, I agree with the majority of SCSI zealots: if the damn PC makers would embrace SCSI, then the cost of SCSI would come down to near parity from the volume of sales.
Now, is SCSI better for your average Joe? Maybe not significantly. Neither is 7200 vs 5400, 2MB vs 8MB buffers, or 8.9 vs 9.1 ms access times.
However, if they could use one cable to connect 15 devices in their tower, they'd be alot happier than having the 8 cables they'd need to do it with current IDE tech (let alone IDE's relative inability to be used externally).
This gives me some really bad mental imagery involving the straight line and 'L' shaped pieces...
At least we don't have a pure brown LED yet...
There are a number of reasons to be worried about HD reliability:
1. As the fly height gets lower (generally a requisite of higher data density), the chances of a head crash increase (or if there is any dust or other particulate matter, the chances of the head turning into a record needle).
2. Higher data density = less area consumed for a bit = easier for data to be lost.
3. Higher track density = more probability that the head can go off track and write too close to (or over) adjacent tracks (yes, this can happen, and I guarantee it does on at least a yearly basis to someone you know).
Combine this with thin margins (and corresponding decreases in funding to QA and good suppliers/mfg), and you have a recipe for disaster.
For the last time: Back up your friggin' data.
Plopping into a chair produces a very short pulse at 10G. That duration is key here. Most people will pass out in prolonged exposure to 10G.
Most "injuries" related to non-bruising/bone breaking G-forces are from blood deprevation. A really long, tight turn may be enough to deprive your brain of enough blood flow to cause you (or someone with poor circulation to start out with) to pass out. After passing out, you'll just flop around on the ride, where real injury can occur.
As for direct effects, we of course have the very unscientific number of "healthy patrons" which gives us some comfort with the current state. However, it isn't insane to believe that large exposure to prolonged, high-G roller coasters could pose real health hazards. Imagine if someone built a 10G sled that accelerated you linearly, then radially for say 30 seconds. Most of the people on the ride would have a hard time walking after, and many may have passed out.
Setting reasonable standards isn't a bad thing. If someone wants to build one faster or whatever, they could always file a variance with the locality if they could prove it was safe. This just puts their rides up to (more) public scrutiny.
I think the idea would be to make some attempt to match it's speed, then contact and start the engines firing to push it off course.
Rather than think of it like a car's air bag, think about it as a way to spread out the pressure along the surface of the object. A rocket on the surface of a comet or loosely bound asteroid may just disintegrate the parts, yielding little benefit.
Which is more comfortable to sleep on: a pillow or the blunt end of a pencil?
Notably missing from the posted code is anything capable of recording. It may be that the recorder is a key element missing.
You may be able to compile it, but you won't end up with a PVR.
It looks to me, superficially, as if they are doing *exactly* what is required and nothing more. You can't fault them for that, their value add is the recording facility. If they give that away, there is little for them to build a business model on other than a Tivo'esque subscription.
Of course, as these make it into geek hands, and they are opened up and inspected, we will get a better idea as to whether they are being as compliant as they appear.
Near the end of the comparison document is a section that was hand optimized in assembly. The only differences are the names of the registers, and a few things are reversed.
That, to me, is the most damning of all the evidence. Directory structure: oh, we were inspired by their structure. Compiled code: optimization conincidence. But coming up with a hand optimized assembly code of that length, and having it accidentally that close - not in a million years.
Well, technically, you might be able to get away with one. Just have the orbit be really deep, and you can see the satellite constantly.
A few factors come into play here.
If they are at the axial pole (as opposed to the magnetic pole), any satellite which is far enough from the earth in an equatorial orbit should be continuously visible.
Given a lack of data for the actual curvature of the earth near the pole, I couldn't really give you a good calculation of how deep such an orbit would have to be. It may be too deep to be practical.
Broadband? South Pole? Internet? Penguins? I know there's some sort of wry humor in there somewhere.
This might bring new meaning to the ol' "Avian Carrier" joke...
Find a reputable consulting firm/group and offer your services as a contract worker to them first. Marketing yourselves directly as independant programmers will be very difficult.
Most companies who are looking for out-sourced programming needs are looking for:
1. Small, one-shot deals (a database, a parser, etc)
2. Maintenance on old code.
3. Supplemental help on a large, in house project without any strings attached.
You will not have time to be an effective programmer and self salesman in a slow economy.
... is really pointless. The argument is: an architect designs a house that doesn't blow over, or a bridge that handles the traffic load without collapsing. However, in these cases, anyone who does something out of the ordinary with the house (fills it with water, tries to open the inside door without opening the screen door), would be laughed at if they called it a design flaw.
Take the usual punching bag for example: IIS. IIS, when used properly, works quite well. You might argue about the functionality/performance/cost compared to [insert favorite httpd], but pass over those arguments for now.
Security is a common complaint for IIS. However, if a person broke into your house by going in through a weak point (a window, the chimney, etc), you wouldn't blame the architect.
Zealots might say that backdoors in software are like using doors without locks. But this is ignoring the fact that software is often not an integration of existing, proven solutions, but an exploration of ways to attack a problem. Also, these failings are plain to the layman, whereas software bugs are often obscure to the guru. You simply cannot have the expectation that software will *NEVER* crash.
An architect has a given set of solutions for common problems (building codes, pre-existing designs, etc). If they can't solve a problem with an existing, proven solution (or a mild derivation of such), they probably wouldn't take on the job. Programmers do not have this luxury. We are inventing these solutions on the fly -- and we will make mistakes.
If this person walks away at this point and takes the counter offer the liklihood of any future opportunity with the potential employer that made the offer is virtually nil.
I don't think I contended that. Perhaps you misinterpreted me, I was talking about an independant recruiter (as I believe the parent was).
Of course the company that offers you a job is going to be irked... they wanted you enough to try to steal you away from someone else. However, they won't be so immature as to try to tar your image in the industry (again, unless they are morons).
It most emphatically is in no way comparable to doing business with a door-to-door salesman.
It is more than you think. You don't ask for a door-to-door salesman to come, (s)he just does, and tries to sell to you (in the case of a recruiter, they are trying to sell you on a job).
Real people will not feel burned (again, unless you abused the process, like making a salesman come and clean your house several times with the vacuum they are selling). They just won't approach you with the same job again. You were interested enough to talk to them, so they will keep you on their contact list.
As for valuing longtime service, that cuts both ways. Stay much longer than 5 years and things can begin working against you, depending on how aggressively you are trying to further your career. Should the unfortunate thing happen and you become unemployed, having been at firm A 15 years won't look nearly as good as having been at firm A three years, firm B five years, firm C four years, and firm D three years, everything else being equal.
I think you were on to something, then ran away from it. If you were at a firm for 15 years, and advanced to a higher position (senior designer, manager, CEO...), I think that any reasonable person would look at that as a far greater indication of your skill than the "breadth" of experience you would get doing entry level work for 5 companies. It is a matter of balance, as if you are in a dead-end position for 15 years, it will look worse than having 4 dead end positions, unless they think that you are a ship-jumper.
Just some point by point counter-perspective:
...
one - you can only do this once or twice before they stop giving you pay raises, and each iteration burns a bridge at a potentially new and exciting job, with new and better opportunities for you.
If someone is honestly considering other positions now, what is to prevent them from doing that in the future?
two - if the recruiter gets burned (she or he will lose their commision [likely 30% of your new salary if they're an independent headhunter] if you take the counter-offer) you lose an ally if and when you really do want to switch jobs (you can bet they'll put a black mark in your file, and it will affect the service you get next time around.
By this argument, you should never deny a door-to-door salesman. Most salespeople (and make no mistake, that is what a headhunter is), do not take offense if you refuse their service after their pitch, they will see it as their own failing, not yours. Any headhunter who feels burned (unless you abused them [see below]) is a moron.
three - you'll still be in the same position you were before. No new opportunities, no new challenges, just more money (for now).
However, companies favor employees with longer service records for promotion. True, you threatened to leave, but you chose to stay, giving up the luster of a different company for your company's same old B.S. No manager would look down on you looking to better serve yourself financially. You gave them the chance, which means you really don't want to go elsewhere (or at least have a tolerance for it).
four/five
see above
six - you should go to the recruiter, tell them about the counter offer, and see if they can't give you a little more. I wouldn't necessarilly get the two sides in a bidding war (that might well leave your new employer with a bad taste in their mouth), but if they can outdo the counter-offer by a little bit, it might go a long way toward making your decision easier.
A valid piece of advice. However, chances are they did make the lowest offer that they thought would lure you away. A short bidding war isn't necessarily a bad thing. If it becomes long and protracted (special benefits package, longer vacation, company car, better parking spot, etc), then you are definitely stretching things.
IMHO if all things are equal, take the new job. The disadvantages I listed above are signficant, and there really would need to be a compelling reason to ignore them and take the counter offer, and having equal pay and the (quite possibly faux) comfort of not changing jobs isn't nearly enough IMHO.
Comfort is an oversimplification, in my book. Really, this is about choosing what is best. Generalization rarely chooses the the optimal solution to a problem. And this is a problem which probably cannot be argued to a solid conclusion as it has a large basis in emotion (do I like my job? Will my employer be mad? etc).
Honestly, I cannot FATHOM that the number of CDR's they claim were seized actually were. Honestly, if 2.8Mega CD's were confiscated, where was the news coverage of the busts? I have never once heard of any of these busts on the news. There would HAVE to be at least a few big hauls of confiscation that would warrant news coverage. Hell, every time someone gets caught smuggling a couple of pounds of pot in, it gets news coverage.
The source of the data is missing from the Yahoo story, does anyone know who's ass this data was pulled from?
Do you think the Bowie machine has the power to make the music industry see the light?"
Do not doubt the power of David Bowie's Area
The same way advertising does.
I think this may be a rather inventive way of advertising. Sponsorship. It has "worked" for decades in sports, why not in open source?
What would be cute is if they had a "Brought to you by..." message during the splash screen for the driver.
You apparently aren't an EE. There are a number of ways to do voltage multiplication without a (large) transformer (technically, you can do it without the XMFR, it just helps).
Here is one way. I'm too lazy to try to find a better link with some theory attached, but if you follow the current path on the voltage swings, you should be able to figure it out.
You seem to be missing the author's point. Most of the time, when you are about to do such an operation, you want to be sure that the commands to be executed are what you expect (for example, if this is going to do something destructive, such as remove files). By using the echo, you can preview the execution, check it off, and just rerun the last command with a pipe.
I had simililar problems with my Epox 8KHA+. Turned out that there appears to be some weird bug in the Via chipsets or the timing setup that causes memory errors (strangely, this was only detected by an old version of memtest86 (2.7), the new bios cleared this up and things are running smoothly). It could be something similar
Obvious:
Jodie Foster, Tom Skerrit (and maybe Matthew McConaughey, for moral support).
The force you feel throwing you outward in a curve is exactly that, a force you FEEL. You are feeling your intertia. It is the same as when you accelerate forward in a car (you feel a "force" pushing you down in your seat). You wouldn't call it a "force" when you did this, would you? It is called equal and opposite reaction, something that anyone in any classical physics course should always accept without question.
The page you reference even admits that centriFUGAL force is a fiction of mathematical convenience. However, centripetal acceleration is real (something has to keep you in place). A force has to be responsible for that (as far as I am aware, there is no way to undergo acceleration without a force).
Now, yes, you can invent frames of reference which tend to ignore any acceleration you want. However, in any normal frame of reference, centripetal acceleration does exist, and centrifugal force is merely an experience (you feel your equal and opposite reaction to your centripetal acceleration, and notice that you are drifting away if the centripetal acceleration is lost).
Check This out for CNN's coverage
It is basically a Reuter's article, but they aren't covering it up. Just stashing it in the "Technology" section... where it belongs.
Don't get me wrong, I doubt you'll see this bill being discussed on ANY news analysis show. Their bosses don't want the other side to get the airtime. Maybe it is time to start a letter writing campaign to the O'Reilly Factor and Hardball (screw Donahue).
You seem to be confused about who is redefining the word.
Addiction as per Merriam Webster:
compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
Note: they do use the typical recursion for "the quality or state of being addicted" and they use a broader definition as in addicted to gambling. However, this, as I discuss below is a matter of symantics, and is inapplicable to "real" Psychology.
Compulsive:
of, relating to, caused by, or suggestive of psychological compulsion or obsession
These are the definitions that are generally used by the Psychology community, whom I would consider a greater authority than you. Internet "addiction" is a compulsion, not an addiction. An addiction requires real treatment, including drugs sometimes, to break. It involves serious functional deficiencies if the addiction is removed. As I stated before, if you were suddenly removed of the Internet, but had something else to keep you busy, you wouldn't even notice (other than a COMPULSION to read your email).
Further, I am not defining it purely as physical addiction, but one that invokes REAL withdrawl symptoms, not just listlessness and boredom. Did you get sick when you were without the Internet? Did you think to do irrational things like steal or kill to get your Internet access back? I didn't think so.
As for replacing a social activity: who says hobbies are solitary? You may play a sport as a hobby, or play cards, or dance. Reading a book was chosen as an example as something that could supplant the reading part of the Internet.
So in summary, the Internet is not addictive. Users can be lulled away with different, shiny things like TV, games, and sex. A person who was truly addicted would go to irrational lengths to get a fix (people who distill their own booze, steal from stores to get drug money, and smoke other people's cigarette butts would be good examples). I seriously doubt that you are so poorly adjusted as to even briefly seriously consider breaking into an ISP to check your email.