Here's a hint, the author doesn't know a single word of Russian. The author has no idea what ZAO means and hence doesn't realize including it is strange given the other company name uses.
Sure a competent journalist would look it up, but that an article is written by someone lazy also does not seem "odd".
Yes American TVs (probably NTSC TVs in general) tend to just do NTSC.
In the PAL world however, the TVs handle NTSC as well just fine (in 99% of cases). Possibly because importing a VHS tape from the US is the more common direction and hence it's a useful feature.
And yes he's from the right half of the Labor party, which compared which puts him somewhere left of Stalin in terms of US politics, and somewhere right of Menzies in terms of Australian...
Apollo had people in control to turn off the rockets so they didn't take off again (well not "land" in the first place). The lander had to hit 0 speed at some distance from the ground, and then stop firing the thruster.
The "lower by rope" system has the advantage off a much much larger range heights for that 0 speed point. It doesn't have to do a thruster based landing it just to get within [length of the rope] from the ground before it starts going back up.
This seems a good solution to me - not as cool as a bouncing ball though...
He's claiming Tony Blair was elected PM, but Gordon Brown wasn't.
Both were elected MPs. Both were elected leader of the Labour Party. Neither was elected PM, because the PM is appointed by the Queen (and there would be a riot if she didn't appoint the leader of the majority party of the House of Commons).
He was elected leader of the labour party in 2007. Sure it was uncontested since no one else got enough nominations.
Do you have any clue at all as to how the Parliament works in the UK? Please explain to me what "elected PM" means so I can have a good laugh before bed.
I'd hazard to guess that most slashdot readers are city-folk who had never heard of such a thing before.
So objectively newsworthy since the research has shown one of the explanations to likely be true. And subjectively newsworthy since the bulk of the readership will have never heard of it before.
Yes the original articles language might be a bit on the hype it up side. Then again, maybe that particular technique of a rubbing a stake with a piece of metal is uncommon elsewhere? And the study only looked at it, other techniques might have a different mechanism.
So because something is commonly done, but the reasons it works aren't known - there are competing explanations, your rain one was the one shown to be unlikely in the study - means those reasons shouldn't be looked at to determine if any of them are correct?
Much better just to stick with whatever random explanations we have. The dirt god does it!
It means that when the bank fails - not just doesn't have enough currency on hand this minute - the FDIC will give you your money back.
But the FDIC will send you a check or more likely your account will end up at some other bank with the FDIC replacing the money in it.
They don't mail you $100,000 in cash:)
I didn't miss the whole point, we're just talking past each other. My point was there is nothing else but those bytes in the computer - there is no physical thing those bytes represent. The bytes themselves are the money.
I agree that in a bank the money is yours (and the bank is borrowing it from you), whereas in an online game the stuff is the companies and they could turn off the servers tomorrow with their only liability being to refund your unused but paid for game time (well I would hope they would have to refund that) - they certainly don't have to hand over your +5 sword of rabbit killing.
I'm just saying that there are cases where "a series of bytes" is in fact worth your concern and that series of bytes is really all their is in reality (I think I handle the actual currency for about 4% of my financial transaction, by value not count).
FDIC does not commit to sending you paper currency, it commits to setting some bytes in a different computer...
But I don't see what any of that has to do with your checking account be a "a series of bytes" that it is worth quibbling about the ownership of.
Especially since there isn't enough physical currency (and never will be - because making there be would be retarded) to cover all of it and hence it is in a very real sense "just" a series of bytes.
The topic isn't the evils of banking, the wonderous goodness of the money multiplier, the gold standard, or any of those geek favourite topics - it's simple a question of whether "a series of bytes" might be worth quibbling over...
Of course there's a whole branch of discussion about the thing this isn't about, because I momentarily forgot that slashdot it home to ron paultards...
Company Press Conference: "Oh I'm sorry we didn't announce that we lost $72 billion last month due to [insert asset price collapse here], but we signed a contract with those other guy over there leaving it to them so legally we couldn't do so. Pardon? I fail to see what me selling all my stock last week has to do with any of this, next question."
And I expect them to meet the SEC requirements for being a public company.
Slashdot Mirror
That is part of Feynman's joke.
Again, you are assuming the journalist will actually do some work.
The fact that that they don't is not "odd". I promise they didn't look at a business directory for any of the other company names either.
How is that odd?
Here's a hint, the author doesn't know a single word of Russian. The author has no idea what ZAO means and hence doesn't realize including it is strange given the other company name uses.
Sure a competent journalist would look it up, but that an article is written by someone lazy also does not seem "odd".
Obviously a game which needs will come with it on the disc. Just like they always have.
Yes American TVs (probably NTSC TVs in general) tend to just do NTSC.
In the PAL world however, the TVs handle NTSC as well just fine (in 99% of cases). Possibly because importing a VHS tape from the US is the more common direction and hence it's a useful feature.
I still don't see why that would be capitalised.
And yes he's from the right half of the Labor party, which compared which puts him somewhere left of Stalin in terms of US politics, and somewhere right of Menzies in terms of Australian...
Conservative? That's a title I haven't heard of before. Minister or Senator is what I would expect.
He's in the damn Labor party, which hardly makes him a lower c conservative.
So just what the hell is an upper C Conservative in Australia???
Ah yes, for people who need such life support that does make sense. I was thinking about cargo for no apparent reason.
Though radiation shielding is probably a nice thing for some cargo too...
Surely if you can get on such a cyler you are already moving at the same veolicity and in the same position as it is.
Hence even if it didn't exist whatever container you were in would follow that very same path and hence end up at mars anyway?
Of course Aldrin has forgotten a few orders of magnitude more than I've ever known about this stuff, so I must be missing something...
Clearly you have never met my "loved ones".
Yes, damn liberal judges legislating from the bench!
But I guess it doesn't matter in this case, since God will kill him anyway so death it will be...
Hence the use of the word "indication" and not the words "incontrovertible proof".
Once you see the obvious indication you click the link to check the date or if too lazy to do that don't post just in case...
Sure expected the "editor" to actually look at the article is excessive. But:
"Disk drive capacities double every 18-24 months. We have 1 TB drives now, and in 2009 we'll have 2 TB drives."
Is an obvious indication that this article is old since 18-24 away puts you in 2010 now...
Apollo had people in control to turn off the rockets so they didn't take off again (well not "land" in the first place). The lander had to hit 0 speed at some distance from the ground, and then stop firing the thruster.
The "lower by rope" system has the advantage off a much much larger range heights for that 0 speed point. It doesn't have to do a thruster based landing it just to get within [length of the rope] from the ground before it starts going back up.
This seems a good solution to me - not as cool as a bouncing ball though...
That "Best part" bit king of indicates it doesn't work so well after all.
Given he was probably paid a big percentage fee on the gains, and pulled of return of 870% on a $300 million fund, I don't think he gives a shit.
Which is exactly what he wasn't arguing.
He's claiming Tony Blair was elected PM, but Gordon Brown wasn't.
Both were elected MPs. Both were elected leader of the Labour Party. Neither was elected PM, because the PM is appointed by the Queen (and there would be a riot if she didn't appoint the leader of the majority party of the House of Commons).
He was elected leader of the labour party in 2007. Sure it was uncontested since no one else got enough nominations.
Do you have any clue at all as to how the Parliament works in the UK? Please explain to me what "elected PM" means so I can have a good laugh before bed.
Of course he was elected.
He's the MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, just like Blair was the MP for Sedgefield.
I'd hazard to guess that most slashdot readers are city-folk who had never heard of such a thing before.
So objectively newsworthy since the research has shown one of the explanations to likely be true. And subjectively newsworthy since the bulk of the readership will have never heard of it before.
Yes the original articles language might be a bit on the hype it up side. Then again, maybe that particular technique of a rubbing a stake with a piece of metal is uncommon elsewhere? And the study only looked at it, other techniques might have a different mechanism.
So because something is commonly done, but the reasons it works aren't known - there are competing explanations, your rain one was the one shown to be unlikely in the study - means those reasons shouldn't be looked at to determine if any of them are correct?
Much better just to stick with whatever random explanations we have. The dirt god does it!
It means that when the bank fails - not just doesn't have enough currency on hand this minute - the FDIC will give you your money back.
But the FDIC will send you a check or more likely your account will end up at some other bank with the FDIC replacing the money in it.
They don't mail you $100,000 in cash :)
I didn't miss the whole point, we're just talking past each other. My point was there is nothing else but those bytes in the computer - there is no physical thing those bytes represent. The bytes themselves are the money.
I agree that in a bank the money is yours (and the bank is borrowing it from you), whereas in an online game the stuff is the companies and they could turn off the servers tomorrow with their only liability being to refund your unused but paid for game time (well I would hope they would have to refund that) - they certainly don't have to hand over your +5 sword of rabbit killing.
I'm just saying that there are cases where "a series of bytes" is in fact worth your concern and that series of bytes is really all their is in reality (I think I handle the actual currency for about 4% of my financial transaction, by value not count).
FDIC does not commit to sending you paper currency, it commits to setting some bytes in a different computer...
But I don't see what any of that has to do with your checking account be a "a series of bytes" that it is worth quibbling about the ownership of.
Especially since there isn't enough physical currency (and never will be - because making there be would be retarded) to cover all of it and hence it is in a very real sense "just" a series of bytes.
The topic isn't the evils of banking, the wonderous goodness of the money multiplier, the gold standard, or any of those geek favourite topics - it's simple a question of whether "a series of bytes" might be worth quibbling over...
Of course there's a whole branch of discussion about the thing this isn't about, because I momentarily forgot that slashdot it home to ron paultards...
But they can't say "it's all OK except for this one small case" when they know it's a bigger deal than that.
You can't sign such things away.
Company Press Conference:
"Oh I'm sorry we didn't announce that we lost $72 billion last month due to [insert asset price collapse here], but we signed a contract with those other guy over there leaving it to them so legally we couldn't do so. Pardon? I fail to see what me selling all my stock last week has to do with any of this, next question."
And I expect them to meet the SEC requirements for being a public company.