Those numbers are *exactly* the same, so that's completely irrelevant.
Since you don't know they aren't metering there's no gaming and holding the line open for longer than you would otherwise to skew the numbers. So if they lose $100,000 in revenue from not billing calls initiated in that one second, then they must usually make $100,000 of revenue from calls initiated every second. So we still have $100,000 * 31,556,926 seconds.
I said we already had that, just as external programs/files (which is better anyway, since you can manage the space/redundancy trade-off at a more convenient time than file creation by the application - I want more redundancy if I'm uploading to usenet than if I'm storing on my hard drive, for example).
My "crazy suggestion" was about the reason that the brain can filter out garbage so much better. It's not just because the brain is good at that (though it certainly is), it's helped dramatically by the fact that real world things like talking and writing and paintings have large amounts of redundancy in their representations.
The spirit of the law is that you use a recording device in a movie theater you go to jail. Since that's exactly what the people who wrote it intended.
Sure, but you'd need to not compress anything and introduce redundancy. Most people prefer using efficient formats and doing error checks and corrections elsewhere (in the filesystem, by external correction codes - par2 springs to mind, etc).
Here's a simple image format that will survive bit flip style corruption:
Every pixel is stored as with 96 bits, the first 32 is the width of the image, the next 32 is the height, the next 8 bits is the R, the next 8 bits is the G, the next 8 bits is the B, and the last 8 bits is the alpha channel.
To read the image every 96 bit chunk is read and the most common 64 bit prefix is used as the width/height. And the 24 bits of color data for each pixel is used as is.
That will survive large amounts bit corruption just fine - it won't survive shifting (adding 32 bits of extra data at the start of the file, for example). It would also be ridiculously large compared with the image file formats we do actually use.
How is oxidative phosphorylation not producing energy in exactly the same way that burning coal produces energy?
Muscles do in fact produce energy, in fact even better than say burning oil they convert it to motion all by themselves. Of course capturing that is likely so innefficient as to be worthless.
It isn't violating thermodynamics because all it is doing is releasing the energy locked up previously in the fuel by photosynthesis. If it is then burning a log in the fireplace also is. And it also takes energy to start a log burning.
"how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered", rather then "how could you know you are eating "organic" and not genetically modified Frankenstein lab grown artificial vat food".
The source article is written by a Brit and published on a British company's website so sueing in England won't be hard (just not slahsdot).
Of course the original author wasn't retarded enough to actually name the company, though it's in the article he linked to as a reference (then again so is the in-game nature of the company).
So you're just left with ports not letting you dock then.
And I guess the random sailor managing to get off his shots while being shot at by automatic weapons fire - but training or just hiring security people isn't a big deal.
No, but most countries aren't going to let your ship in their waters let alone to dock in their ports if it is loaded out with machine guns and torpedoes.
And shooting fisherman whom you mistake for pirates in generally frowned upon.
They're already seeing it and have been seeing it since around 1980. So has a bunch of other countries that try the same trick, particularly Japan and South Korea. The problem is transitioning from an economy that is highly dependent on exports to one that isn't. China isn't trying to do so. Maybe they will down the road, but they'll need to stop inflating their currency first.
If you think China isn't trying to do so you haven't been following them very closely.
China will do just fine when the US falls off a cliff. Of course just fine means a sharp recession followed by recovery, not "oh look nothing happened".
Internal wealth creation doesn't make a difference. If you run a trade deficit then foreign entities are receiving more of your currency than they are spending on your stuff.
And why is my argument wrong?
Now that I think of it, the US also has inflation - just print money. The main agents which are maintaining the trade deficit (the EU, China, and Japan) are probably destroying a lot of wealth that they receive via trade deficits.
Because inflation results in the currency devaluing, if it isn't matched by inflation in other countries.
Trade deficits will be automatically corrected by currency exchange rate moves, if you are importing more than you export then the supply of your currency exceeds the demand and it goes down in value.
It has nothing to do with whether deficits are "bad" - they aren't. It's whether a nation can run a trade deficit forever.
You can run a deficit for a long time, but at some point people want to paid for their work.
Foreign entities are not just going to sit on the paper forever, at some point they actually want to be paid for their work and will redeem the currency for stuff.
That redeeming causes removes the deficit. Either you had that amazing internal wealth creation you weren't exporting and you start exporting - you now aren't running a deficit due to those exports. Or all that money bids up the price of your stuff by and the value of your currency plummets - you now aren't running a deficit due to the currency revaluation.
Not if it's done in the future when there is a larger trade deficit to mask it. There's a great deal of investment in US government securities (perhaps I should use scare quotes with "investments") and corporate bonds. That addresses the technical issue of currency imbalance.
Those things have interest payments, so either foreigners end up owning the entire US or they want to convert some of the returns from US dollars into stuff. Selling those dollars then puts more downward pressure on the currency and all we've done is delay and magnify.
The US dollar being the reserve/trade currency means that China (for example) has been able to export to the US, take the US dollars and then buy oil/etc with them. Which is the main reason this seems to have been sustainable.
Not likely, there's too much money for that. They buy US bonds and loans with them.
yes, that's sitting on them which I mentioned as the reason the US is able to run a deficit for much much longer than it should have been able to.
Combined with currency manipulation - China printing yuans with which is buy up dollars (and just sit on them) that would otherwise cause the currency revaluation above. China has motives for that, but the end game involves them stopping.
Maybe China means to do that, maybe not. They'll destroy a lot of their wealth doing that as well as most of their export economy. There isn't a subtle way to get rid of what they have. It's not an obvious move to me even for a soulless giant bent on becoming first place economically.
No they won't. They'll mark to market and lose a lot of paper wealth. But it's not real to start with so they haven't lot anything.
In fact they'll see an economic boom the likes of which we last saw when the US did effectivley the same thing at the end of WW2 (the US stopped exporting its production to the rest of the world in exchange for nothing - it was building bombs, tanks, bullets, guns, etc, etc during the war and using them up - and turned that production into domestic manufacturing).
Or they could maintain the current situation and remove the US from the current loop of:
1. Chinese capitalist invests capital and pays wages (in yuan) to workers to make stuff. 2. US importer buys stuff from Chinese factory which results i
Internal wealth creation doesn't make a difference. If you run a trade deficit then foreign entities are receiving more of your currency than they are spending on your stuff.
Foreign entities are not just going to sit on the paper forever, at some point they actually want to be paid for their work and will redeem the currency for stuff.
That redeeming causes removes the deficit. Either you had that amazing internal wealth creation you weren't exporting and you start exporting - you now aren't running a deficit due to those exports. Or all that money bids up the price of your stuff by and the value of your currency plummets - you now aren't running a deficit due to the currency revaluation.
The US dollar being the reserve/trade currency means that China (for example) has been able to export to the US, take the US dollars and then buy oil/etc with them. Which is the main reason this seems to have been sustainable.
Combined with currency manipulation - China printing yuans with which is buy up dollars (and just sit on them) that would otherwise cause the currency revaluation above. China has motives for that, but the end game involves them stopping.
And I disagree that the US is expanding. Remove consumption from the GDP (it isn't production, you certainly can't sell it to others), is the US still growing economy?
Slashdot Mirror
Those numbers are *exactly* the same, so that's completely irrelevant.
Since you don't know they aren't metering there's no gaming and holding the line open for longer than you would otherwise to skew the numbers. So if they lose $100,000 in revenue from not billing calls initiated in that one second, then they must usually make $100,000 of revenue from calls initiated every second. So we still have $100,000 * 31,556,926 seconds.
The word "discovered" in the first fucking line of the summary may provide a hint.
As would the smallest amount of common sense.
I said we already had that, just as external programs/files (which is better anyway, since you can manage the space/redundancy trade-off at a more convenient time than file creation by the application - I want more redundancy if I'm uploading to usenet than if I'm storing on my hard drive, for example).
My "crazy suggestion" was about the reason that the brain can filter out garbage so much better. It's not just because the brain is good at that (though it certainly is), it's helped dramatically by the fact that real world things like talking and writing and paintings have large amounts of redundancy in their representations.
Because primary!=only.
And Americans like to laugh at the English and their big brother/nanny state (while trying not to think about their own).
Because SMDs aren't tedious enough already...
It's DARPA for deity's sake, previously known as ARPA, previously known as DARPA, previously known as ARPA.
You know ARPANET.
Does slashdot have to expand "FTP" and "HTTP" and "SMTP" whever it mentions them too?
Plus of course slashdot is an American based web siute aimed at Americans as the primary audience.
Because it does 1080p and the wii doesn't?
She was caught and admitted to committing a felony, lying doesn't seem that big a stretch.
The spirit of the law is that you use a recording device in a movie theater you go to jail. Since that's exactly what the people who wrote it intended.
Sure, but you'd need to not compress anything and introduce redundancy. Most people prefer using efficient formats and doing error checks and corrections elsewhere (in the filesystem, by external correction codes - par2 springs to mind, etc).
Here's a simple image format that will survive bit flip style corruption:
Every pixel is stored as with 96 bits, the first 32 is the width of the image, the next 32 is the height, the next 8 bits is the R, the next 8 bits is the G, the next 8 bits is the B, and the last 8 bits is the alpha channel.
To read the image every 96 bit chunk is read and the most common 64 bit prefix is used as the width/height. And the 24 bits of color data for each pixel is used as is.
That will survive large amounts bit corruption just fine - it won't survive shifting (adding 32 bits of extra data at the start of the file, for example). It would also be ridiculously large compared with the image file formats we do actually use.
That would be pseudonymous not anonymous.
billions of dollars just aren't what they used to be.
I've never seen a place where the administrator gets to spend money/time on the stuff he wants to.
But yes you could have a moron who decided the test server budget was better spent on Twinkies.
If he doesn't have a test server, then of course he routinely doesn't test upgrades on it - it would be physically impossible to do so after all.
How is oxidative phosphorylation not producing energy in exactly the same way that burning coal produces energy?
Muscles do in fact produce energy, in fact even better than say burning oil they convert it to motion all by themselves. Of course capturing that is likely so innefficient as to be worthless.
It isn't violating thermodynamics because all it is doing is releasing the energy locked up previously in the fuel by photosynthesis. If it is then burning a log in the fireplace also is. And it also takes energy to start a log burning.
"how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered", rather then "how could you know you are eating "organic" and not genetically modified Frankenstein lab grown artificial vat food".
The source article is written by a Brit and published on a British company's website so sueing in England won't be hard (just not slahsdot).
Of course the original author wasn't retarded enough to actually name the company, though it's in the article he linked to as a reference (then again so is the in-game nature of the company).
So you're just left with ports not letting you dock then.
And I guess the random sailor managing to get off his shots while being shot at by automatic weapons fire - but training or just hiring security people isn't a big deal.
So a semi-automatic rifle is going to suffice against AK-47s and RPGs?
Yes they are. And yes I am.
It does not end well.
But I think China will come out of it better off than the US comes out of it. Neither place will call it a good time for the duration though.
No, but most countries aren't going to let your ship in their waters let alone to dock in their ports if it is loaded out with machine guns and torpedoes.
And shooting fisherman whom you mistake for pirates in generally frowned upon.
They're already seeing it and have been seeing it since around 1980. So has a bunch of other countries that try the same trick, particularly Japan and South Korea. The problem is transitioning from an economy that is highly dependent on exports to one that isn't. China isn't trying to do so. Maybe they will down the road, but they'll need to stop inflating their currency first.
If you think China isn't trying to do so you haven't been following them very closely.
China will do just fine when the US falls off a cliff. Of course just fine means a sharp recession followed by recovery, not "oh look nothing happened".
But it has (according to the article) for 2000 years. But yeah, feel free to wait for it to change to solve all our problems.
Internal wealth creation doesn't make a difference. If you run a trade deficit then foreign entities are receiving more of your currency than they are spending on your stuff.
And why is my argument wrong?
Now that I think of it, the US also has inflation - just print money. The main agents which are maintaining the trade deficit (the EU, China, and Japan) are probably destroying a lot of wealth that they receive via trade deficits.
Because inflation results in the currency devaluing, if it isn't matched by inflation in other countries.
Trade deficits will be automatically corrected by currency exchange rate moves, if you are importing more than you export then the supply of your currency exceeds the demand and it goes down in value.
It has nothing to do with whether deficits are "bad" - they aren't. It's whether a nation can run a trade deficit forever.
You can run a deficit for a long time, but at some point people want to paid for their work.
Foreign entities are not just going to sit on the paper forever, at some point they actually want to be paid for their work and will redeem the currency for stuff.
That redeeming causes removes the deficit. Either you had that amazing internal wealth creation you weren't exporting and you start exporting - you now aren't running a deficit due to those exports. Or all that money bids up the price of your stuff by and the value of your currency plummets - you now aren't running a deficit due to the currency revaluation.
Not if it's done in the future when there is a larger trade deficit to mask it. There's a great deal of investment in US government securities (perhaps I should use scare quotes with "investments") and corporate bonds. That addresses the technical issue of currency imbalance.
Those things have interest payments, so either foreigners end up owning the entire US or they want to convert some of the returns from US dollars into stuff. Selling those dollars then puts more downward pressure on the currency and all we've done is delay and magnify.
The US dollar being the reserve/trade currency means that China (for example) has been able to export to the US, take the US dollars and then buy oil/etc with them. Which is the main reason this seems to have been sustainable.
Not likely, there's too much money for that. They buy US bonds and loans with them.
yes, that's sitting on them which I mentioned as the reason the US is able to run a deficit for much much longer than it should have been able to.
Combined with currency manipulation - China printing yuans with which is buy up dollars (and just sit on them) that would otherwise cause the currency revaluation above. China has motives for that, but the end game involves them stopping.
Maybe China means to do that, maybe not. They'll destroy a lot of their wealth doing that as well as most of their export economy. There isn't a subtle way to get rid of what they have. It's not an obvious move to me even for a soulless giant bent on becoming first place economically.
No they won't. They'll mark to market and lose a lot of paper wealth. But it's not real to start with so they haven't lot anything.
In fact they'll see an economic boom the likes of which we last saw when the US did effectivley the same thing at the end of WW2 (the US stopped exporting its production to the rest of the world in exchange for nothing - it was building bombs, tanks, bullets, guns, etc, etc during the war and using them up - and turned that production into domestic manufacturing).
Or they could maintain the current situation and remove the US from the current loop of:
1. Chinese capitalist invests capital and pays wages (in yuan) to workers to make stuff.
2. US importer buys stuff from Chinese factory which results i
Internal wealth creation doesn't make a difference. If you run a trade deficit then foreign entities are receiving more of your currency than they are spending on your stuff.
Foreign entities are not just going to sit on the paper forever, at some point they actually want to be paid for their work and will redeem the currency for stuff.
That redeeming causes removes the deficit. Either you had that amazing internal wealth creation you weren't exporting and you start exporting - you now aren't running a deficit due to those exports. Or all that money bids up the price of your stuff by and the value of your currency plummets - you now aren't running a deficit due to the currency revaluation.
The US dollar being the reserve/trade currency means that China (for example) has been able to export to the US, take the US dollars and then buy oil/etc with them. Which is the main reason this seems to have been sustainable.
Combined with currency manipulation - China printing yuans with which is buy up dollars (and just sit on them) that would otherwise cause the currency revaluation above. China has motives for that, but the end game involves them stopping.
And I disagree that the US is expanding. Remove consumption from the GDP (it isn't production, you certainly can't sell it to others), is the US still growing economy?