The chance of losing another drive before you are able to rebuild is indeed pretty high, which is why anyone using RAID5 nowadays is asking for trouble. RAID6 is okay, RAID10 is better (with 2 brands of HDs). If power is important an union (aufs2) of multiple RAID1(0) arrays is a decent option as well... inactive drives can spin down that way.
AAA might as well stand for America America America... if America's debt isn't AAA then nothing is, when the US defaults all debtors will be defaulting. By that time you want to own arable land rather than be a creditor.
Income distribution is more of a poisson curve... not as long tailed as the asset distribution curve though, fortunately income doesn't peak in the negative either.
Even ignoring that party support is necessary to get elected, they are only accountable to the people they need to elect them and not the electorate as a whole. They are entirely unaccountable to the disenfranchised voters if they don't need them, which in FPTP is true in the majority of districts.
In reality though party support is essential... so even the people who get to decide whether Kang or Kodo represents the party it doesn't matter. They are accountable to the party whips (or whatever they call them in the US) more than they are to the voters.
You can buy optical fourier transform setups... "instant" fourier transform based on quantum interference. Not terribly compact though, also the transform is fast but the D/A conversion not so much.
Curse wanted Warhammeralliance not for the name but for it's history... I doubt they really considered legal consequences, since if GW had legal claims it would have had them 5 years earlier too. Whether it's a fan or a company makes not a lick of difference legally. Driving up 10s of thousands of dollars in lawyers cost bringing a suit without even giving Curse an opportunity to remedy the situation is just a complete asshole move.
Before bringing suit I would have said GW had the moral right to demand Curse changed the domain name... after bringing the suit the most just outcome however I think is for them to lose. Unless they want to swallow their lawyer fees in case of settlement, without damages, which I sincerely doubt.
The registration is through domain by proxy. The contact information is not false, it's just information for an intermediary. If using intermediaries was illegal GW's lawyers would be out of work.
Tim Sweeney regularly pontificates on the need of a new language.
Although I think his love for functional programming and STM is misguided... I think Occam-pi is a better example of the way forward for parallel programming.
There are still too many practical problems in the way... streaming 1080P@60 Hz at 25 msec for the majority of your customers? Not now, not soon.
Same with cartridges though, the equivalent of a BR disc worth in flash will remain too expensive for the foreseeable future to replace a disc which costs a couple of pennies to produce.
How can you use a rule like that for social power games? Deletionism with byzantine rules and procedures are what makes all of Wales projects so great... you have to look beneath the surface, they are designed to be social MMOs first and foremost.
There is no mechanism for the price to increase as the pool of remaining adresses decreases, there is in fact a mechanism in place for $RANDOMHOSTINGPROVIDER to rent them out cheaper... whatever he has when the clock runs out is what he will be stuck with.
The problem with non-obviousness is that lawyers argue that it is impossible to judge in hind sight. So they come up with all kinds of "alternatives" which essentially always come down to "No prior art? Then it's not obvious." in practice. Or in other words :
"It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts."
My view is that the only reasonable obviousness test is a purely subjective democratic decision by a jury of the inventors peers. In the old days when being up to date with the state of the art in multiple fields was much easier than today idealistic well educated patent examiners might have been a decent alternative, but idealism is dead and besides... the patent examiners have to follow the lawyer tests to determine obviousness, so they can't use good judgement any more even if they had it.
The idea of patents is defensible, but the reality of lawyer corrupted patents where non obviousness is a non issue (or at best a crapshoot, where it's judged by a jury of idiots in Texas) is not. We need something better... and as long as we don't get something better the world of software is better off without them.
I can say without a doubt in my mind that any H.264 implementation infringes on patent clauses for patents not in the patent pool... all software of non trivial complexity infringes on patents.
It's a way to describe a propagating wavefront, probably not a good choice of words.
What I meant to say was that for any given point on the window the intensity of light coming from any given direction has to be output at the same intensity and in the same direction on the other side. For all positions and directions at the same time... you can quantize the spatial and angular resolutions a bit, but simply using a directional LED doesn't cut it.
As I said further down it could in theory work with a variation on integral imaging though.
The light doesn't just have to be directional... you have to do something similar to holography. The angular spectrum of the outgoing light has to be the same as the incoming light at a given point on the window (although it can be quantized a bit, like with integral imaging).
On second thought... the image could look great... from outside. From the inside the direction of travel of the light is mirrored around the center of the integral lens. I guess you need one more lens to flip it back.
There is actually a very simple way to capture/replay wavefronts for which this technology is ideally suited, integral imaging.
You simply put an exactly aligned integral lens array in front and at the back and you're done. You need very high resolution of course, but because the pixels are so simple and completely independent that's not a problem. You would probably want to use diffractive instead of refractive lenses so you can get a decent viewing angle, but again that is no problem here because you are only using a single wavelength on each side.
If you wanted to do this for a windscreen though you would have to interleave the IR integral lenses with clear window. So say 1/2 mm square IR conversion pels (consisting of an IR filter, an integral lenslet, the conversion film with something like 1 um pixels and then another integral lenslet) interleaved with a normal clear window. At an effective 25 DPI the resolution wouldn't be great, and normal viewing would have a bit of screendoor effect though. Smaller and or less IR pels per clear window would help, but hard to say what's appropriate without experimenting.
Should work... almost certainly a patented concept though. If not... it probably should be patented:)
Slashdot Mirror
The chance of losing another drive before you are able to rebuild is indeed pretty high, which is why anyone using RAID5 nowadays is asking for trouble. RAID6 is okay, RAID10 is better (with 2 brands of HDs). If power is important an union (aufs2) of multiple RAID1(0) arrays is a decent option as well ... inactive drives can spin down that way.
AAA might as well stand for America America America ... if America's debt isn't AAA then nothing is, when the US defaults all debtors will be defaulting. By that time you want to own arable land rather than be a creditor.
Income distribution is more of a poisson curve ... not as long tailed as the asset distribution curve though, fortunately income doesn't peak in the negative either.
Or you know, you can just file an application at the ALREADY EXISTING European Patent Office.
http://www.epo.org/patents/Grant-procedure/Filing-an-application/European-applications.html
This isn't about application/grants ... this is about enforcement (and consequently patentability).
Even ignoring that party support is necessary to get elected, they are only accountable to the people they need to elect them and not the electorate as a whole. They are entirely unaccountable to the disenfranchised voters if they don't need them, which in FPTP is true in the majority of districts.
In reality though party support is essential ... so even the people who get to decide whether Kang or Kodo represents the party it doesn't matter. They are accountable to the party whips (or whatever they call them in the US) more than they are to the voters.
You can buy optical fourier transform setups ... "instant" fourier transform based on quantum interference. Not terribly compact though, also the transform is fast but the D/A conversion not so much.
http://www.cambridgecorrelators.com/products.html
"1.5GBytes of DDR 2 RAM"
HAHAHAHAHA ... no.
Curse wanted Warhammeralliance not for the name but for it's history ... I doubt they really considered legal consequences, since if GW had legal claims it would have had them 5 years earlier too. Whether it's a fan or a company makes not a lick of difference legally. Driving up 10s of thousands of dollars in lawyers cost bringing a suit without even giving Curse an opportunity to remedy the situation is just a complete asshole move.
Before bringing suit I would have said GW had the moral right to demand Curse changed the domain name ... after bringing the suit the most just outcome however I think is for them to lose. Unless they want to swallow their lawyer fees in case of settlement, without damages, which I sincerely doubt.
The registration is through domain by proxy. The contact information is not false, it's just information for an intermediary. If using intermediaries was illegal GW's lawyers would be out of work.
Love? They despise their customers.
Tim Sweeney regularly pontificates on the need of a new language.
Although I think his love for functional programming and STM is misguided ... I think Occam-pi is a better example of the way forward for parallel programming.
There are still too many practical problems in the way ... streaming 1080P@60 Hz at 25 msec for the majority of your customers? Not now, not soon.
Same with cartridges though, the equivalent of a BR disc worth in flash will remain too expensive for the foreseeable future to replace a disc which costs a couple of pennies to produce.
How can you use a rule like that for social power games? Deletionism with byzantine rules and procedures are what makes all of Wales projects so great ... you have to look beneath the surface, they are designed to be social MMOs first and foremost.
There is no mechanism for the price to increase as the pool of remaining adresses decreases, there is in fact a mechanism in place for $RANDOMHOSTINGPROVIDER to rent them out cheaper ... whatever he has when the clock runs out is what he will be stuck with.
So don't use it ... it really doesn't matter to the upstream router whether you use one or a million IPs in the subnet.
The problem with non-obviousness is that lawyers argue that it is impossible to judge in hind sight. So they come up with all kinds of "alternatives" which essentially always come down to "No prior art? Then it's not obvious." in practice. Or in other words :
"It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts."
My view is that the only reasonable obviousness test is a purely subjective democratic decision by a jury of the inventors peers. In the old days when being up to date with the state of the art in multiple fields was much easier than today idealistic well educated patent examiners might have been a decent alternative, but idealism is dead and besides ... the patent examiners have to follow the lawyer tests to determine obviousness, so they can't use good judgement any more even if they had it.
The idea of patents is defensible, but the reality of lawyer corrupted patents where non obviousness is a non issue (or at best a crapshoot, where it's judged by a jury of idiots in Texas) is not. We need something better ... and as long as we don't get something better the world of software is better off without them.
What patents?
I can say without a doubt in my mind that any H.264 implementation infringes on patent clauses for patents not in the patent pool ... all software of non trivial complexity infringes on patents.
This isn't about Xiph ... this is about Google.
Apple is in a very similar position as Microsoft was a while ago, and they are using the EXACT same playbook ... FUD.
The incoming light from a light source at 50 meter at different points on the window is going to vary in intensity by less than 1%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_spectrum_method
It's a way to describe a propagating wavefront, probably not a good choice of words.
What I meant to say was that for any given point on the window the intensity of light coming from any given direction has to be output at the same intensity and in the same direction on the other side. For all positions and directions at the same time ... you can quantize the spatial and angular resolutions a bit, but simply using a directional LED doesn't cut it.
As I said further down it could in theory work with a variation on integral imaging though.
It's perfect for note taking and portability ... it's a bit substandard for video viewing.
The light doesn't just have to be directional ... you have to do something similar to holography. The angular spectrum of the outgoing light has to be the same as the incoming light at a given point on the window (although it can be quantized a bit, like with integral imaging).
On second thought ... the image could look great ... from outside. From the inside the direction of travel of the light is mirrored around the center of the integral lens. I guess you need one more lens to flip it back.
There is actually a very simple way to capture/replay wavefronts for which this technology is ideally suited, integral imaging.
You simply put an exactly aligned integral lens array in front and at the back and you're done. You need very high resolution of course, but because the pixels are so simple and completely independent that's not a problem. You would probably want to use diffractive instead of refractive lenses so you can get a decent viewing angle, but again that is no problem here because you are only using a single wavelength on each side.
If you wanted to do this for a windscreen though you would have to interleave the IR integral lenses with clear window. So say 1/2 mm square IR conversion pels (consisting of an IR filter, an integral lenslet, the conversion film with something like 1 um pixels and then another integral lenslet) interleaved with a normal clear window. At an effective 25 DPI the resolution wouldn't be great, and normal viewing would have a bit of screendoor effect though. Smaller and or less IR pels per clear window would help, but hard to say what's appropriate without experimenting.
Should work ... almost certainly a patented concept though. If not ... it probably should be patented :)