i agree, and this raises another point i had not considered, most isp's charge content provider/owners for up bandwidth, and most content consumers/users for down bandwidth, so they would effectively be charging twice for the same packet transfer anyways, eh?
so they broke into a router (electronic trespassing, to be sure)? you say a border router, meaning isp? so then the isp would have reason to sue them based on their evidence in the face of a court of law that they were not attacking your network, they were hacking the router?
so why should they not be held liable, including possible federal decisions (remember interstate communications here, usually - i know, not always) to the point of federal jail time?
Ideally, they'd like to have to transfer no data and still get a monthly payment from their subscribers.
Don't forget no maintenance fees for the idle equipment either! Or not having to pay the linemen!
"Wait," they say, "we could set this up like a tax on the bottom of the bill, so that the customers don't recognize what it's for, and they pay it anyways, and we just pocket the money for existing! Great Idea!!!"
<before I get off my rant box> Pardon me, could you pass the KY.
This could just be me, but I would say that Google DOES use the resources of various ISPs, because they have this little thing they use called a bot. When they trawl the 'net, they aren't sniffing every packet that goes by on every network and compiling an image from there, they are actively searching the 'net, thus using a portion of the network providers ability to serve files to the end user. But isn't this what Google is paying their ISP for? Presumably, with an operation as large as Google's, they are paying for multiple OCs, (but that is a best guess without any authoratative proof to confirm. Any info anybody?).
cmon slashkitty, you know better than that why google let's these people misrepresent. it's cause they claim that they don't review their ads until it is reported that the ad is in some way "evil", which inherently means that someone must place a trouble ticket with the reviewers.
so we can only hold google to a very small portion of the blame, although i agree with your "direction" that they need to review all adwords/adsense/ad-whatever-they-call-it before the are released, and make sure that the results are intelligent for the search. wonder if they'll start limiting ad submissions on the basis of "evil"ness?
I wonder who would have the appeal base that they can make a "recommendation" like that, that google would listen to them? What are we really talking about here, google doing less evil? I think so!
that if the client is sending more than x emails per hour/10 mins/3 seconds/two whale farts/whatever then they have to pay the fee? so if i am sending out ten emails in 1 day, then i probably am not a spammer. does this make sense? now the question is, what about legit mailing groups, ie unis/colleges (who have their own sendmail/etc server usually, but the receiving server could still reject it.
so where do i get a job implementing "pornographic" features for future video games, and then get to test it with those features enabled, before the boss decides it's gotta go?
i'm pretty sure it's not in kansas . . . (or about 1000 miles around there either)
Food for thought: Does "do no evil" extend to enforcing your own idea of "good" on everyone else?
I should think that enforcing one's ideas on another is exactly the problem under consideration. Is Google big and bad enough to go toe-to-toe against the CCP? I don't think so.
Back to your question, does the fact that google.cn doesn't look for misspellings offer any clue as to whether they are attempting to be as subversive as possible? I.e., reference the tian-tien spelling difference on tianaman square. I know, I don't know how to spell it, and rather than look like a superb genius, I attempt here to reflect my humility and ask others to correct me from memory on spelling, rather than using the authoritative and helpful Google "did you mean" feature. Honestly, I hope they can leave that in for China's non-CCP inquisitive.
well, first point is that it would be vendor specific (ie, distribution channel, ie cray, etc).
second point, can the architecture even handle it. don't think i've seen hanibal explain anything like this for intel chips over at arstechnica. anybody with info? probably can't even happen, without a redesign. of course, something like ItaniumX, which isn't even strictly intel, may support it, but I don't know enough of the archy to know for sure. does intel even produce more than the pent fam and the itan family? pentiums: pentium -> p2 -> p3 -> p4 -> Xe & celeries itaniums: itanium -> i2 we know the pent fam doesn't support this sort of scalable memory bus, so itan?
third, <waah>, i want one. Of course, I also want an infinitely scalable system, but so be it, I think the forces of the universe, okay, simple economics, are limiting my options here.</waah>
i thought that part of AMDs focus was to provide a memory bus directly from the proc and aside from the northbridge, or am i misreading something somewhere
actually yes, I was familiar with this information about stem cells and mothers. However, my information on the subject (which does not imply perfect knowledge) is that it is only with the first pregnancy that this occurs.
As far as the cells moving around, sure they do, all organ's cells move, they have to be constantly replaced, right? No, I'm not stating that every [period of time] every cell in your body is in the act of being replaced, but over time, yes, right? By the same token, I can understand that chemicals in the brain may not leave, but to say that the cells are just dying off and not being replaced at all sounds a little wierd to me.
But also as far as the cells moving around, wouldn't that be an example of forming new paths? Look at concrete dividers on the highway in a major city. They don't move often (to us, not time lapse photography or a vacationer or whatever), but they can be moved to represent a new route through wherever, right? So why can't the brain cells be rerouted to connect two different nerve bundles, or whatever controls memory?
So. Do you people actually see things in your heads? Can you picture a face/scene/object/symbol - and really look at it?
Yes, and this is normally how I describe it to people, that I can do this in multiple frames, if you will, in my head, such that I can visualize multiple seperate items, scenes, or combinations in my head at one time.
My father once remarked, well, everybody does that, to which I replied, but in full motion, full color, with a hint of sound, all on two or three fronts at a time? Yes was the answer I recieved, although I doubted it then, and still do.
medical degree is not something to sneeze at, doesn't make you a genius, however
None of the people in question have a medical degree. Having medical degrees wouldn't make them geniuses, but it might give reason to believe they know something about anatomy. As it is, they don't even have that.
so quoting the gp post, you state about Pearsall that Okay, so he's a Psychologist, not an MD and while this does refute my medical degree claim, however, hasn't a masters of science degree proven that he can think? or better, what about the PhD of Russek's? I misunderstood what I read above, I was in the middle of class copiously taking notes (i'll give you the transcript if you like) so was not 100% focused on what I read, thought that you had mentioned that one or the other of them was a medical doctor.
In as far as loss of memory, people lose their memory all the time. Normally it is attributed to the aging process or the fact that someone is really tired or whatever, but what if, in the case of the elderly, the problem is that their minds have forgotten what paths the information lie upon? In multiple amputee victims or the like, well, I am pitifully without information on this one. I can neither confirm nor deny that they have loss or no loss of memory, however, I suspect, neither can you. If you can, by all means, share with me.
Why is it necessary that the organ have an easily measurable electronic signature during information recall? On top of that, I have never seen a person have their liver being scanned during thought process recording. Actually, I don't even know if that's a good name to call what I am trying to describe, and am sure there is a true name for the process, but I am not a medical student, and have never heard the name for recording thought processes by way of viewing the body with a special aparatus. I assume it's the MRI process, but I thought that was a special way to take a 3d snapshot of a body, not monitor it's activities in detail on an electronic level. Just because the platters of a hard drive spin doesn't mean that they have a current running through them, does it? Last I checked, applying much of a current would probably ruin the data on the platter. Now the motor on the other hand, would show lots of electrical activity.
As far as why most people don't normally show memory loss, possibly it is that the memories that are lost are those we don't need often? The reason why the liver being removed doesn't cause us to lose important information is that it only stores the silly stuff? I really don't know, if I did, do you think I would be having this conversation, or do you think I would be in a lab somewhere trying to help make life better for the affected and just be posting my paper here for the world to read, thereby enlightening all to the method by which memory in the human body is stored and lost?
However, does my theory truly have so many holes that it is akin to swiss cheese? Consider some of the works of Leonardo DaVinci (not that I could ever be 1% of the genius that he was), even though all he did a lot of the time that gets him recognized now was he wrote down what he saw, and thought about it. Here I apply his concept, as many before me have. I see that (rather, hear about) people who have organ transplants have new memories, and I wonder what could cause that, and if there could be a rational explanation or is it all metaphysical, so then where does the soul seperate from the body if you are picking up information from somebody else's body? These are all questions that I feel are larger than myself, but just as a castle is larger than one man, many men together may defeat it, that is to say, break it down and show the insides for what they are. But not every siege in history was successful, so this may still elude even the best of minds upon the planet. To paraphrase Mr. Newton, I stand upo
Slashdot Mirror
i agree, and this raises another point i had not considered, most isp's charge content provider/owners for up bandwidth, and most content consumers/users for down bandwidth, so they would effectively be charging twice for the same packet transfer anyways, eh?
corporate + politics
yay
you had to ask him that? you must be new here. every nth poster is new here.
sheesh, now i feel new here posting this!
run for the hills!!!
so they broke into a router (electronic trespassing, to be sure)? you say a border router, meaning isp? so then the isp would have reason to sue them based on their evidence in the face of a court of law that they were not attacking your network, they were hacking the router?
so why should they not be held liable, including possible federal decisions (remember interstate communications here, usually - i know, not always) to the point of federal jail time?
<I know I know, unreasonable, come on you stinking trollers, hit me for something important>
"Wait," they say, "we could set this up like a tax on the bottom of the bill, so that the customers don't recognize what it's for, and they pay it anyways, and we just pocket the money for existing! Great Idea!!!"
<before I get off my rant box> Pardon me, could you pass the KY.
This could just be me, but I would say that Google DOES use the resources of various ISPs, because they have this little thing they use called a bot. When they trawl the 'net, they aren't sniffing every packet that goes by on every network and compiling an image from there, they are actively searching the 'net, thus using a portion of the network providers ability to serve files to the end user. But isn't this what Google is paying their ISP for? Presumably, with an operation as large as Google's, they are paying for multiple OCs, (but that is a best guess without any authoratative proof to confirm. Any info anybody?).
has anyone else noticed ZONK seems to be the only person posting stories for the past 18 hours?
questions, comments, did i miss something? or is my browser going lulu on me?
you want that joke in pump or pill form?
either way, it's "Gauranteed or Your Money Back!"
just click >here< to opt out.
cmon slashkitty, you know better than that why google let's these people misrepresent. it's cause they claim that they don't review their ads until it is reported that the ad is in some way "evil", which inherently means that someone must place a trouble ticket with the reviewers.
so we can only hold google to a very small portion of the blame, although i agree with your "direction" that they need to review all adwords/adsense/ad-whatever-they-call-it before the are released, and make sure that the results are intelligent for the search. wonder if they'll start limiting ad submissions on the basis of "evil"ness?
I wonder who would have the appeal base that they can make a "recommendation" like that, that google would listen to them? What are we really talking about here, google doing less evil? I think so!
. . . ADWARE? . . .
'nuff said
that if the client is sending more than x emails per hour/10 mins/3 seconds/two whale farts/whatever then they have to pay the fee? so if i am sending out ten emails in 1 day, then i probably am not a spammer. does this make sense? now the question is, what about legit mailing groups, ie unis/colleges (who have their own sendmail/etc server usually, but the receiving server could still reject it.
i live in sbc prime dsl territory, so guess who my dsl provider is?
so where do i get a job implementing "pornographic" features for future video games, and then get to test it with those features enabled, before the boss decides it's gotta go?
i'm pretty sure it's not in kansas . . . (or about 1000 miles around there either)
could potentially go on forever, eh? (apparently i'm just burning karma)
you mean like on the macintosh notebooks?
I should think that enforcing one's ideas on another is exactly the problem under consideration. Is Google big and bad enough to go toe-to-toe against the CCP? I don't think so.
Back to your question, does the fact that google.cn doesn't look for misspellings offer any clue as to whether they are attempting to be as subversive as possible? I.e., reference the tian-tien spelling difference on tianaman square. I know, I don't know how to spell it, and rather than look like a superb genius, I attempt here to reflect my humility and ask others to correct me from memory on spelling, rather than using the authoritative and helpful Google "did you mean" feature. Honestly, I hope they can leave that in for China's non-CCP inquisitive.
well, first point is that it would be vendor specific (ie, distribution channel, ie cray, etc).
second point, can the architecture even handle it. don't think i've seen hanibal explain anything like this for intel chips over at arstechnica. anybody with info? probably can't even happen, without a redesign. of course, something like ItaniumX, which isn't even strictly intel, may support it, but I don't know enough of the archy to know for sure. does intel even produce more than the pent fam and the itan family?
pentiums: pentium -> p2 -> p3 -> p4 -> Xe & celeries
itaniums: itanium -> i2
we know the pent fam doesn't support this sort of scalable memory bus, so itan?
third, <waah>, i want one. Of course, I also want an infinitely scalable system, but so be it, I think the forces of the universe, okay, simple economics, are limiting my options here.</waah>
i thought that part of AMDs focus was to provide a memory bus directly from the proc and aside from the northbridge, or am i misreading something somewhere
enlightenment please!?!
MOD POINTS. SOMEONE PLEASE MOD THIS POST UP!
okay, thanks, i needed that laugh.
that was good.
back to work now, i guess.
brown
green
brown
green
ah, hell, it's just dog ####
Cool, thanks for the heads up, see this is why bumping heads together in a public way is helpful. Very interesting info
actually yes, I was familiar with this information about stem cells and mothers. However, my information on the subject (which does not imply perfect knowledge) is that it is only with the first pregnancy that this occurs.
As far as the cells moving around, sure they do, all organ's cells move, they have to be constantly replaced, right? No, I'm not stating that every [period of time] every cell in your body is in the act of being replaced, but over time, yes, right? By the same token, I can understand that chemicals in the brain may not leave, but to say that the cells are just dying off and not being replaced at all sounds a little wierd to me.
But also as far as the cells moving around, wouldn't that be an example of forming new paths? Look at concrete dividers on the highway in a major city. They don't move often (to us, not time lapse photography or a vacationer or whatever), but they can be moved to represent a new route through wherever, right? So why can't the brain cells be rerouted to connect two different nerve bundles, or whatever controls memory?
So. Do you people actually see things in your heads? Can you picture a face/scene/object/symbol - and really look at it?
Yes, and this is normally how I describe it to people, that I can do this in multiple frames, if you will, in my head, such that I can visualize multiple seperate items, scenes, or combinations in my head at one time.
My father once remarked, well, everybody does that, to which I replied, but in full motion, full color, with a hint of sound, all on two or three fronts at a time? Yes was the answer I recieved, although I doubted it then, and still do.
so quoting the gp post, you state about Pearsall that Okay, so he's a Psychologist, not an MD and while this does refute my medical degree claim, however, hasn't a masters of science degree proven that he can think? or better, what about the PhD of Russek's? I misunderstood what I read above, I was in the middle of class copiously taking notes (i'll give you the transcript if you like) so was not 100% focused on what I read, thought that you had mentioned that one or the other of them was a medical doctor.
In as far as loss of memory, people lose their memory all the time. Normally it is attributed to the aging process or the fact that someone is really tired or whatever, but what if, in the case of the elderly, the problem is that their minds have forgotten what paths the information lie upon? In multiple amputee victims or the like, well, I am pitifully without information on this one. I can neither confirm nor deny that they have loss or no loss of memory, however, I suspect, neither can you. If you can, by all means, share with me.
Why is it necessary that the organ have an easily measurable electronic signature during information recall? On top of that, I have never seen a person have their liver being scanned during thought process recording. Actually, I don't even know if that's a good name to call what I am trying to describe, and am sure there is a true name for the process, but I am not a medical student, and have never heard the name for recording thought processes by way of viewing the body with a special aparatus. I assume it's the MRI process, but I thought that was a special way to take a 3d snapshot of a body, not monitor it's activities in detail on an electronic level. Just because the platters of a hard drive spin doesn't mean that they have a current running through them, does it? Last I checked, applying much of a current would probably ruin the data on the platter. Now the motor on the other hand, would show lots of electrical activity.
As far as why most people don't normally show memory loss, possibly it is that the memories that are lost are those we don't need often? The reason why the liver being removed doesn't cause us to lose important information is that it only stores the silly stuff? I really don't know, if I did, do you think I would be having this conversation, or do you think I would be in a lab somewhere trying to help make life better for the affected and just be posting my paper here for the world to read, thereby enlightening all to the method by which memory in the human body is stored and lost?
However, does my theory truly have so many holes that it is akin to swiss cheese? Consider some of the works of Leonardo DaVinci (not that I could ever be 1% of the genius that he was), even though all he did a lot of the time that gets him recognized now was he wrote down what he saw, and thought about it. Here I apply his concept, as many before me have. I see that (rather, hear about) people who have organ transplants have new memories, and I wonder what could cause that, and if there could be a rational explanation or is it all metaphysical, so then where does the soul seperate from the body if you are picking up information from somebody else's body? These are all questions that I feel are larger than myself, but just as a castle is larger than one man, many men together may defeat it, that is to say, break it down and show the insides for what they are. But not every siege in history was successful, so this may still elude even the best of minds upon the planet. To paraphrase Mr. Newton, I stand upo