People who grind the raids don't generally like having to do the daily grind to fund their raiding though, no accomplishments to be had there... only pure and utter grind.
The patch before the last was pretty much an invitation to gold sellers... the last patch made the prices a little more sane, but some of the higher level ones are still only affordable by people who abused the crafting opportunities early in the game to stockpile and sell after the last patch. Mythic created a large number of very wealthy players who will be soaking up anything valuable for quite a while and driving up the prices.
How am I supposed to send them patches? Their entire system works on the members only principle... the only time they work anywhere near the open is if they cooperate with other standard agencies which force them into it, like the ITU with H.264 development (Mr. Chiariglione gets awful but hurt when you call it H.264 BTW).
That's cute, so when they slip up and say ideas like everyone else they can say "but I was talking about abstract ideas, and you were not". The whole "you can't patent ideas" thing is just a little semantic diversion, used by idiots who don't recognise it as such and people who are disingenuous.
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted"
Or did I miss the part where they said "but we withhold the right to sue you for inducement to infringe if you try the former, and actual infringement for the latter"?
AT&T vs Microsoft puts contributory infringement to bed... but AFAICS distributing source code can still be construed as inducement to infringe (which wasn't relevant in the AT&T vs Microsoft case because it dealt with a different set of laws on exports, to a country where the patent wasn't valid in the first place).
Compensating to increase the power factor is just a cost issue though, it will make the bulbs a little more expensive... but they won't become less efficient.
I can buy a CFL and test it, no need to parrot anyone. They are more efficient than incandescent lights on the market... it's a plain undeniable truth.
Anyway, are there decent journal article which back you up? Or is it some grand conspiracy keeping this technology down?
A single purpose laptop running only the control software (can in theory be subverted by the operator, but you have to trust him anyway) with a good old dial up modem seems pretty secure and workable to me.
I can compare and contrast all day long, but it has nothing to do with your original post.
If the US had turned Iraq into a glass parking lot every country in the world would have spend the couple 100 million dollar necessary to engineer biological weapons and delivery systems capable of whiping out the greater part of the earth's population.
Driving subsets of the stack at a time, switching between subsets at supersonic frequencies, to avoid having to drive the entire stack at some uber voltage.
Put the stack on a curved surface to get a greater distribution angle.
I could see all these failing to work well in practice (although I think the curved surface one has a very small chance of failure). Might work though.
They don't have any particular antipathy to the GPL... Chriss Lattner proposed LLVM as a GCC successor after starting work at Apple. The FSF kicked him to the curb. I don't know if they underestimated his and Apple's commitment into turning the compiler into a true competitor or if they are simply stupid.
As LLVM gets better GCC will lose developers, this is unavoidable, it's EGCS all over again... but this time a merge doesn't seem on the cards. It wasn't LLVM but the FSF themselves who torpedoed one of the GPL flagships... and for very very poor reasons.
Because they don't want to expose high level intermediary code (too easy to hijack part of the compiler into a closed source project). Or at least that was one of the reasons LLVM was rejected for next generation GCC at the time.
They might have changed their mind now LLVM is bearing down on them...
LLVM has it's own active sub project for higher level languages... they just released an OCaml compiler in fact (easier than Python of course, since it is statically typed).
Slashdot Mirror
Telstra is one of those wonderful privatized monopolies. It's the worst of both worlds.
Nuff Said.
Stokolab, the last mile operator in question, is communally owned. That's pretty socialist right there.
It just goes to show the importance of moderation in all things. Moderation in regulation. Moderation in privatization.
Maybe the most read newspaper is trying to teach you something.
Language moves on and no amount of kicking and screaming by amateur (or professional) linguists will change that ;)
Google is not a customer it's a peer.
People who grind the raids don't generally like having to do the daily grind to fund their raiding though, no accomplishments to be had there ... only pure and utter grind.
The patch before the last was pretty much an invitation to gold sellers ... the last patch made the prices a little more sane, but some of the higher level ones are still only affordable by people who abused the crafting opportunities early in the game to stockpile and sell after the last patch. Mythic created a large number of very wealthy players who will be soaking up anything valuable for quite a while and driving up the prices.
How am I supposed to send them patches? Their entire system works on the members only principle ... the only time they work anywhere near the open is if they cooperate with other standard agencies which force them into it, like the ITU with H.264 development (Mr. Chiariglione gets awful but hurt when you call it H.264 BTW).
That's cute, so when they slip up and say ideas like everyone else they can say "but I was talking about abstract ideas, and you were not". The whole "you can't patent ideas" thing is just a little semantic diversion, used by idiots who don't recognise it as such and people who are disingenuous.
Plain English, do you speak it?
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted"
Or did I miss the part where they said "but we withhold the right to sue you for inducement to infringe if you try the former, and actual infringement for the latter"?
AT&T vs Microsoft puts contributory infringement to bed ... but AFAICS distributing source code can still be construed as inducement to infringe (which wasn't relevant in the AT&T vs Microsoft case because it dealt with a different set of laws on exports, to a country where the patent wasn't valid in the first place).
Compensating to increase the power factor is just a cost issue though, it will make the bulbs a little more expensive ... but they won't become less efficient.
I can buy a CFL and test it, no need to parrot anyone. They are more efficient than incandescent lights on the market ... it's a plain undeniable truth.
Anyway, are there decent journal article which back you up? Or is it some grand conspiracy keeping this technology down?
Maybe they should have tried selling them.
Could you give an example how an established universe makes it hard to write character driven stories? Cause I just don't see it.
Hell, normal fiction seems to do just fine without a reset.
A single purpose laptop running only the control software (can in theory be subverted by the operator, but you have to trust him anyway) with a good old dial up modem seems pretty secure and workable to me.
Plot would be nice too.
"No. Destroy an entire people"
"post-WW2 Japan"
I can compare and contrast all day long, but it has nothing to do with your original post.
If the US had turned Iraq into a glass parking lot every country in the world would have spend the couple 100 million dollar necessary to engineer biological weapons and delivery systems capable of whiping out the greater part of the earth's population.
I just followed that link and saw the box from Eminent Tech which produces bass from a variable pitch propellor ... wish I had thought of that.
Personally I would try :
Making stacks (DUH)
Driving subsets of the stack at a time, switching between subsets at supersonic frequencies, to avoid having to drive the entire stack at some uber voltage.
Put the stack on a curved surface to get a greater distribution angle.
I could see all these failing to work well in practice (although I think the curved surface one has a very small chance of failure). Might work though.
The fact that stock buybacks boost the returns on stock option plans has absolutely nothing to do with their popularity among management of course.
They don't have any particular antipathy to the GPL ... Chriss Lattner proposed LLVM as a GCC successor after starting work at Apple. The FSF kicked him to the curb. I don't know if they underestimated his and Apple's commitment into turning the compiler into a true competitor or if they are simply stupid.
As LLVM gets better GCC will lose developers, this is unavoidable, it's EGCS all over again ... but this time a merge doesn't seem on the cards. It wasn't LLVM but the FSF themselves who torpedoed one of the GPL flagships ... and for very very poor reasons.
Because they don't want to expose high level intermediary code (too easy to hijack part of the compiler into a closed source project). Or at least that was one of the reasons LLVM was rejected for next generation GCC at the time.
They might have changed their mind now LLVM is bearing down on them ...
# Maintain source-level compatibility with CPython applications.
# Maintain source-level compatibility with CPython extension modules.
vs.
Shed Skin will only ever support a subset of all Python features.
LLVM has it's own active sub project for higher level languages ... they just released an OCaml compiler in fact (easier than Python of course, since it is statically typed).