I saw an article back when e3 was running here in Los Angeles, and it mentioned that one of the big things that was going to start happening was the move towards DVD-style boxes, where a thin manual is in the door, and the CD is in the case.
the reviewer was pretty pumped about that, and I will be too... don't know how high the stack of boxes got in my garage before I threw them all out (close to four-five feet)
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
The DMCA states that a statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed must be submitted to EBay.
Seems to me that someone at Microsoft could be found being perjerous. How fun.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
As far as the dating is concerned, I took an astronomy class two years ago while attending University of Phoenix nights (my opinion is that the degree from there is actually more harmfull than not).
At any rate, it turns out that in crystals, the radioactive decay of isotopes is really quite steady (extremely so). All you do is analyze how much isotope is in the crystal, and compare that amount to the isotope's next step (whatever it happens to decay into), and that gives you a really accurate idea as to how old the sample is.
IANAA (I Am Not An Astronomer), but this is what they taught us in class.
Keep asking questions, it's the only way to learn!:)
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Actually, pulling Occam's Razor into the picture, the evidence seems to indicate that it's a lot simpler to say that there is a God, than not. Just look at the whole causality problem (something outside the existing system (universe) must be the initiating cause of said system).
I have a great book on the subject, but it's at home and with the 80 hour weeks it's unlikely that I'll get around to posting more stuff.
Here it is... very theological, but very intersting issues that must be addressed.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Here it is! Man, stare at the center of the circle as close as you can for thirty seconds, then swap your hand in front of the monitor. Your hand literally warps like rippling water.
They've been saying they might do it, but I would REALLY love to see this film on DVD. I taped all but one season when TNT re-broadcast it... I even got cable just for that reason. But to have it in DVD-quality..
wow.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Radio waves are made up of photons, just as is visible light, microwaves, x-rays, infrared, etc. All are various wavelengths of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.
Of course, I have no idea how their spray-on doohickeys can intercept both visible and radio waves, but that's another discussion.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
An H-Bomb would not even take out an entire metro area. Assuming you weren't dumb enough to flip the switch on the bomb itself, there would be plenty of maximum security prisons for you to visit.
We are both saying the same thing, however. We have the right to create/write/say whatever we please. The USE of that thing upon other people (Saying slanderous remarks TO anyone, executing harmful code AGAINST a machine) is what you can already be prosecuted (persecuted?) for.
There are plenty of cases where distributing the source code for something harmful is beneficial. Take the Internet Worm of the 80's, for example, where colleges were trying to reverse-engineer it, and sending the source code to each other to figure out how to stop it.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Whatever happened to Article One of our Bill of Rights?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
When did NO LAWS mean SOME LAWS?
Once you start saying "Well, let's make the exception for that...", then when do you stop? The answer, as the RIAA is valiantly trying to demonstrate to us, is never.
I think the founding fathers knew what they were saying, and they probably thought that NO LAWS was a pretty clear statement. Ah, what a few centuries can do to bend things around.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
I would argue that, yes, you have every right to build it. If you use it, obviously you are going to jail. If you even threaten to use it, you become a threat and should go to jail (something along the lines of Assault--the threat of harm).
I sure as hell don't want to have another law stripping us of another right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
yes. Right now, though, you need a beowolf of Crays to pull it off. Give it 10*18 months, and the computer in your right fingernail could do it no problem.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
What was proposed is not anti-gravity (though astrophysicists are now thinking that this may be a common occurrence). It is gravity shielding. When a correspondent at British Sunday Telegraph received the already-accepted page proofs for the article submitted to the respected Journal of Physics-D, he wrote an article for his newspaper using the word anti-gravity, rather than gravity-shielding.
There was an instant firestorm of ridicule about how anti-gravity was impossible, etc, etc. Podkletnov was let go from his university, his paper was dropped from the journal before it was printed, and he retreated out of the country.
What many people forget is that, "in 1990, a senior scientist at the University of Alabama named Douglas Torr started writing papers with a Chinese woman physicist named Ning Li, predicting that superconductors could affect the force of gravity. This was before Eugene Podkletnov made his observations in Tampere, so naturally Li and Torr were delighted when they heard that Podkletnov had accidentally validated their predictions."
The trick is that Podkletnov was using a very odd combination of materials in his ceramics. This creates an extremely brittle disc that is difficult to spin at high speeds. This guy is an expert in his field, and few have been able to create super-conducting ceramic magnets in this ratio that don't break up at the necessary RPM.
A quick excerpt from the link: True, Podkletnov wasn't a physicist - but he did have a doctorate (in materials science) and he knew how to do careful lab work. When he wrote up his results, his papers were accepted for publication in some sober physics journals, and at least one theoretical physicist - an Italian named Giovanni Modanese - became intrigued. Modanese didn't dismiss the whole idea of gravity shielding, because on the subatomic level, we simply don't know how gravity functions. "What we are lacking today," according to Modanese, "is a knowledge of the microscopic or 'quantum' aspects of gravity, comparable to the good microscopic knowledge we have of electromagnetic or nuclear forces. In this sense, the microscopic origin of the gravitational force is still unknown." At the Max Planck Institute in Munich, he developed a theory to explain the shielding phenomenon.
Oh, and before you go equating this to cold fusion, and saying that it is/was totally bogus, read this article. Read it through to the end, and you will find the interesting results of the experiment, regarding cold fusion.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
but isn't the limit of transistors far above what IBM will be capable of doing? i.e. the transistors don't work once they are made up of less than 6 atoms.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
There was an article less than two months ago about a Mac OS9 Flood Attack capability. John Copeland had discovered that macintosh computers could be used, against the owner's knowledge, to create a massively distributed DoS atatck quite easily.
Has anyone analyzed the packets to determine if they match the requisite 1500 byte ICMP Echo-Request packets? The quote below seems to indicate that, if this is indeed what is going on, it cuold be prevented quite easily.
The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must take action to drop long ICMP packets in the backbone networks (any packet longer than 1499 bytes, at least). -- John Copeland
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
There was an article less than two months ago about a Mac OS9 Flood Attack capability. John Copeland had discovered that macintosh computers could be used, against the owner's knowledge, to create a massively distributed DoS atatck quite easily.
Has anyone analyzed the packets to determine if they match the requisite 1500 byte ICMP Echo-Request packets? The quote below seems to indicate that, if this is indeed what is going on, it cuold be prevented quite easily.
The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must take action to drop long ICMP packets in the backbone networks (any packet longer than 1499 bytes, at least). -- John Copeland
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
In Windows 95/98, Holding down the shift key when closing a browser window will close all explorer windows that were used to arrive at the existing window, as well as the existing window itself.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Well, I was just in a discussion with someone, and I got to thinking about computers vs. brains.
On one hand, the human brain isn't processing at the speed of electrical transmission, as compared to a computer. So, the time that it takes for a chemical to pass from one nuron to another is much more than the time it takes for a few electrons to pass from one transistor to another. In this case, a computer wouldn't need as many transistors as a human brain has nurons.
On the other hand, I seriously doubt that a nuron's only purpose is on/off. If it has just 256 states (a value that I suspect is extremely optimistic), the comptuer equivalent would have to have EIGHT TIMES as many transistors as a human brain.
Of course, thanks to Moore's Law, this will only slow down the inevitable by 12 years or so.:)
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Trust me. It's not like you can actually USE what's printed. You've still got to have brains to actually implement anything that is remotely contemplated in their pages. I mainly buy it for the humor factor.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw an article back when e3 was running here in Los Angeles, and it mentioned that one of the big things that was going to start happening was the move towards DVD-style boxes, where a thin manual is in the door, and the CD is in the case.
the reviewer was pretty pumped about that, and I will be too... don't know how high the stack of boxes got in my garage before I threw them all out (close to four-five feet)
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
So, we are just dying to know...
WHAT WAS THE QUESTION??
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
The links are here, here, and here. Found through hotbot, interestingly enough, as Google and Microsofts own search didn't have a Fnord!'s clue.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
The DMCA states that a statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed must be submitted to EBay.
Seems to me that someone at Microsoft could be found being perjerous. How fun.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
As far as the dating is concerned, I took an astronomy class two years ago while attending University of Phoenix nights (my opinion is that the degree from there is actually more harmfull than not).
:)
At any rate, it turns out that in crystals, the radioactive decay of isotopes is really quite steady (extremely so). All you do is analyze how much isotope is in the crystal, and compare that amount to the isotope's next step (whatever it happens to decay into), and that gives you a really accurate idea as to how old the sample is.
IANAA (I Am Not An Astronomer), but this is what they taught us in class.
Keep asking questions, it's the only way to learn!
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Actually, pulling Occam's Razor into the picture, the evidence seems to indicate that it's a lot simpler to say that there is a God, than not. Just look at the whole causality problem (something outside the existing system (universe) must be the initiating cause of said system).
I have a great book on the subject, but it's at home and with the 80 hour weeks it's unlikely that I'll get around to posting more stuff.
Here it is... very theological, but very intersting issues that must be addressed.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Not really. I have 500 feet of cat5, and crimp my own cable for the home network.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Here it is! Man, stare at the center of the circle as close as you can for thirty seconds, then swap your hand in front of the monitor. Your hand literally warps like rippling water.
Pretty freaky!
The rest of the site is pretty cool.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
They've been saying they might do it, but I would REALLY love to see this film on DVD. I taped all but one season when TNT re-broadcast it... I even got cable just for that reason. But to have it in DVD-quality..
wow.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Radio waves are made up of photons, just as is visible light, microwaves, x-rays, infrared, etc. All are various wavelengths of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.
Of course, I have no idea how their spray-on doohickeys can intercept both visible and radio waves, but that's another discussion.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
An H-Bomb would not even take out an entire metro area. Assuming you weren't dumb enough to flip the switch on the bomb itself, there would be plenty of maximum security prisons for you to visit.
We are both saying the same thing, however. We have the right to create/write/say whatever we please. The USE of that thing upon other people (Saying slanderous remarks TO anyone, executing harmful code AGAINST a machine) is what you can already be prosecuted (persecuted?) for.
There are plenty of cases where distributing the source code for something harmful is beneficial. Take the Internet Worm of the 80's, for example, where colleges were trying to reverse-engineer it, and sending the source code to each other to figure out how to stop it.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Whatever happened to Article One of our Bill of Rights?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
When did NO LAWS mean SOME LAWS?
Once you start saying "Well, let's make the exception for that...", then when do you stop? The answer, as the RIAA is valiantly trying to demonstrate to us, is never.
I think the founding fathers knew what they were saying, and they probably thought that NO LAWS was a pretty clear statement. Ah, what a few centuries can do to bend things around.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
I would argue that, yes, you have every right to build it. If you use it, obviously you are going to jail. If you even threaten to use it, you become a threat and should go to jail (something along the lines of Assault--the threat of harm).
I sure as hell don't want to have another law stripping us of another right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
yes. Right now, though, you need a beowolf of Crays to pull it off. Give it 10*18 months, and the computer in your right fingernail could do it no problem.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
I suggest you read this article at Wired.
What was proposed is not anti-gravity (though astrophysicists are now thinking that this may be a common occurrence). It is gravity shielding. When a correspondent at British Sunday Telegraph received the already-accepted page proofs for the article submitted to the respected Journal of Physics-D, he wrote an article for his newspaper using the word anti-gravity, rather than gravity-shielding.
There was an instant firestorm of ridicule about how anti-gravity was impossible, etc, etc. Podkletnov was let go from his university, his paper was dropped from the journal before it was printed, and he retreated out of the country.
What many people forget is that, "in 1990, a senior scientist at the University of Alabama named Douglas Torr started writing papers with a Chinese woman physicist named Ning Li, predicting that superconductors could affect the force of gravity. This was before Eugene Podkletnov made his observations in Tampere, so naturally Li and Torr were delighted when they heard that Podkletnov had accidentally validated their predictions."
The trick is that Podkletnov was using a very odd combination of materials in his ceramics. This creates an extremely brittle disc that is difficult to spin at high speeds. This guy is an expert in his field, and few have been able to create super-conducting ceramic magnets in this ratio that don't break up at the necessary RPM.
A quick excerpt from the link: True, Podkletnov wasn't a physicist - but he did have a doctorate (in materials science) and he knew how to do careful lab work. When he wrote up his results, his papers were accepted for publication in some sober physics journals, and at least one theoretical physicist - an Italian named Giovanni Modanese - became intrigued. Modanese didn't dismiss the whole idea of gravity shielding, because on the subatomic level, we simply don't know how gravity functions. "What we are lacking today," according to Modanese, "is a knowledge of the microscopic or 'quantum' aspects of gravity, comparable to the good microscopic knowledge we have of electromagnetic or nuclear forces. In this sense, the microscopic origin of the gravitational force is still unknown." At the Max Planck Institute in Munich, he developed a theory to explain the shielding phenomenon.
Oh, and before you go equating this to cold fusion, and saying that it is/was totally bogus, read this article. Read it through to the end, and you will find the interesting results of the experiment, regarding cold fusion.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
I use *4 for an automated minutes count... and it doesn't cost me anything!
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
but isn't the limit of transistors far above what IBM will be capable of doing? i.e. the transistors don't work once they are made up of less than 6 atoms.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Why in the world would they make such a beast for a palmtop CPU?
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
My Voodoo3 3000 can do upwards of that resolution, and still maintains 70-80 hz
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
There was an article less than two months ago about a Mac OS9 Flood Attack capability. John Copeland had discovered that macintosh computers could be used, against the owner's knowledge, to create a massively distributed DoS atatck quite easily.
Has anyone analyzed the packets to determine if they match the requisite 1500 byte ICMP Echo-Request packets? The quote below seems to indicate that, if this is indeed what is going on, it cuold be prevented quite easily.
The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must take action to drop long ICMP packets in the backbone networks (any packet longer than 1499 bytes, at least). -- John Copeland
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
There was an article less than two months ago about a Mac OS9 Flood Attack capability. John Copeland had discovered that macintosh computers could be used, against the owner's knowledge, to create a massively distributed DoS atatck quite easily.
Has anyone analyzed the packets to determine if they match the requisite 1500 byte ICMP Echo-Request packets? The quote below seems to indicate that, if this is indeed what is going on, it cuold be prevented quite easily.
The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must take action to drop long ICMP packets in the backbone networks (any packet longer than 1499 bytes, at least). -- John Copeland
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Asimov would be proud.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
In Windows 95/98, Holding down the shift key when closing a browser window will close all explorer windows that were used to arrive at the existing window, as well as the existing window itself.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Well, I was just in a discussion with someone, and I got to thinking about computers vs. brains.
:)
On one hand, the human brain isn't processing at the speed of electrical transmission, as compared to a computer. So, the time that it takes for a chemical to pass from one nuron to another is much more than the time it takes for a few electrons to pass from one transistor to another. In this case, a computer wouldn't need as many transistors as a human brain has nurons.
On the other hand, I seriously doubt that a nuron's only purpose is on/off. If it has just 256 states (a value that I suspect is extremely optimistic), the comptuer equivalent would have to have EIGHT TIMES as many transistors as a human brain.
Of course, thanks to Moore's Law, this will only slow down the inevitable by 12 years or so.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Trust me. It's not like you can actually USE what's printed. You've still got to have brains to actually implement anything that is remotely contemplated in their pages. I mainly buy it for the humor factor.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.