Show me an SSD that can store all of my data, and I'll show you a hard drive that can do the same at a tenth the cost.
Yes, an SSD works wonderfully for storing frequently-accessed data, like the OS or always-running programs. However, I have yet to find a hard drive that can fit all my data that doesn't cost a small fortune. At some point, the diminishing returns outweigh the cost - sure, I could cut the noise by 5db and access my photos 20% faster, but it would cost more than a small car.
The article also brings up an interesting point: since the glow is caused by radiation from a quasar a few hundred thousand light years away, but that quasar is not currently active, it means that quasars can die extremely quickly, in about 200,000 years if TFA is correct. That's a blink of an eye in astronomic terms.
It also counts as physical evidence for black holes evaporating, which is good.
Additionally, they can no longer use equitable remedies due to the "unclean hands" doctrine - they can't get an injunction, as they usually did against tracker sites. They can still get damages, though, and the burden is on the accused for proving unclean hands, so they might be able to weasel out of it.
American user here, requesting the NIST start migrating America to pure metric. I've done about all I can to prepare myself for metric - I can't do any more unless more people start switching as well, and the only way to really do that seems to be government mandate.
This is called "herd immunity" - if 90% or so are immune, the disease cannot transmit frequently enough to infect the remaining 10%.
However, this ONLY affects diseases that spread via human-to-human contact. If the disease is able to transmit via, say, animals, or can lay dormant for some time, the herd immunity is compromised.
There is also the fact that even with vaccination, some people will catch the disease. Even if it's only a 1% failure rate, that can exacerbate the problem of people not vaccinating enough to compromise herd immunity.
I fully believe that there is something to be gained by reading your forums. Not every single post - just the ones that catch your eye, or seem to be highly-read. Sure, there's going to be a lot of crap, but there's plenty of good ideas out there too.
However, there is very little to be gained by responding to your forums. At most, you might say "actually, that does seem like a good idea", or "I already discussed this in a blog article several months ago. It just doesn't work.". Responding to even half of the stupid, short-sighted and ignorant ideas people post would be a massive waste of time, and would probably drive anyone insane.
Well, aerial combat is almost always at beyond-visual-range nowadays. The thing could be painted florescent pink and it wouldn't affect its abilities in combat. The only thing that matters is radar and stuff.
What the fthagn is this? A Fox News article on/.? And it's actually accurate, non-politicized reporting on a scientific matter?
Apparently, I have entered the Bizarro World. Or perhaps the Mirror Universe. I can't be dreaming, because I'm not surrounded by hot women in tiny outfits, but something is most definitely WRONG here, and I aim to find out what.
I am aware that my "assertion" was not backed by evidence. That is, in fact, why I posted - I was searching for additional data with which to draw a conclusion.
Any advertising agency worth a cent would have conducted exit polls and other research to determine the effectiveness of the ad. If Wikipedia contracted to someone to do the ad, they're almost certain to have some statistics on the subject. However, if they did it in-house (quite likely), they may not have done so.
No. I am suggesting that the ad cost more than it brought in - many of those who donated probably would have done so without any advertising. Also, remember that the ad was considered, by some, to be rather annoying - the ad had a secondary cost of people who intended to donate but chose not too after being bothered by the advertising.
That banner ad wasn't just annoying - it was a rather large image, and it changed often enough that it wasn't always in cache. Given that, I suspect the ad itself was responsible for quite a bit of server load - possibly more than it brought in. I also doubt the ad was that effective. It could even have been counter-productive - "Jimmy is watching you" photoshops are now a minor meme, and not the kind an advertising agency wants to create.
So, we have an ad that was (for a non-profit) somewhat expensive, and was not (in my estimation) particularly effective. I would like to see some more in-depth analysis of that ad's cost-effectiveness, or lack thereof.
Because if Airbus didn't make the deal, Boeing would, and then Airbus wouldn't have the consolation of "sold a bunch of planes to China before they figured out how to do it themselves".
Numbers make no sense without context. If we put our entire GDP into paying off debt, how long would it take to pay it off? About a year (WolframAlpha puts it at 0.98 years). That's still something that's plausible to pay off. Not to mention the fact that, while the US owes other countries money, we too have our debtors.
Uh, "wholesale destruction" isn't what's happening to the US, and China can take little credit for the decline that is happening. At worst, the US is having a slump, caused by incompetent leadership and short-sighted financial policy, combined with a media that doesn't "report" the news so much as it "spins" the news.
Especially since Google is a lot more than search. Youtube, obviously, is a pretty big deal. GMail might be a big one. Chrome's a pretty big browser nowadays. Google Maps is pretty big. Android's rather unlikely to be blocked, but it would also be a pretty big deal. Ads would be a rather odd block, but if sites aren't getting any ad revenue from Italian visitors, they might block them as well, causing a chain-reaction of sites blocking Italy.
Trust me, America's gotten laughed at plenty. Everybody just laughs quietly, or behind our backs, because we've got enough firepower to end any country around.
Google went toe-to-toe with the People's Republic of China, arguably the second-most-powerful nation on the planet. And they won. Sure, China didn't exactly lose, but Google got exactly what it wanted.
Maga-corporations have nearly as much power as governments. Fortunately, Google seems to be one of the "good guys", for a slightly looser definition of "good" than I prefer.
Simple. Youtube will stop working in Italy, probably posting something along the lines of "New government regulations make it financially unfeasible for us to continue operations in this country. For more information, please contact your representative."
After enough congresspeople (or whatever they're called in Italy) get tired of hearing people complaining that Youtube is blocked, the law gets repealed.
While I don't actually disagree with you on that, this story doesn't say anything about skill. This was purely a count of "cooperative actions" - deploying a medkit for teammates, marking enemy positions, and such. Skill wasn't involved - teamwork was.
1) Correct - it is false to conclude from this alone that PC > consoles. However, it's definitely evidence in the favor.
2) They're pretty much identical, except for input device and, on the PC, more configurability on the graphics.
3) Data does not support this - there are more players on the XBox version or the PS3 version than on the PC. So, then, it's even more surprising that the PC showed more cooperation.
I didn't actually hear any "Metallica" music. Sure, it was definitely Metallica-like, but you can't sue for "playing music sorta-kinda similar to the stuff we play".
About the only reference to Metallica was in the song's title: in the recorded version of "Anesthesia - Pulling Teeth" (from the "Kill 'em All" album), Cliff Burton said the words "bass solo, take one"; this is homaged by the song's title, "PAM Solo, Take One". There is literally nothing remotely lawsuit-capable in this.
Hell, even if PAM was to start playing "Enter Sandman", they couldn't sue. You can't sue someone for playing a cover version of your song, something Metallica knows full well (they released a 2-disc compilation of covers, and often play covers in concert).
Can we officially cut the band a break? They filed one lawsuit that was hypocritical and rather stupid, but that was years ago. Since then, they haven't really done anything worthy of hate. Well, maybe "St. Anger", but they apologized for that one.
I'd heard of them; none of them were intended to replace English, but rather to fill some special linguistic role, such as communication between aviators, or as a teaching tool.
Slashdot Mirror
Show me an SSD that can store all of my data, and I'll show you a hard drive that can do the same at a tenth the cost.
Yes, an SSD works wonderfully for storing frequently-accessed data, like the OS or always-running programs. However, I have yet to find a hard drive that can fit all my data that doesn't cost a small fortune. At some point, the diminishing returns outweigh the cost - sure, I could cut the noise by 5db and access my photos 20% faster, but it would cost more than a small car.
Or just buy a good liquid-cooling system. With some of the better ones, the sound of the hard drive spinning makes more noise than the cooling system.
A theory, widely considered "plausible", was made last year. New evidence confirms it, making it more-or-less "confirmed".
The article also brings up an interesting point: since the glow is caused by radiation from a quasar a few hundred thousand light years away, but that quasar is not currently active, it means that quasars can die extremely quickly, in about 200,000 years if TFA is correct. That's a blink of an eye in astronomic terms.
It also counts as physical evidence for black holes evaporating, which is good.
Additionally, they can no longer use equitable remedies due to the "unclean hands" doctrine - they can't get an injunction, as they usually did against tracker sites. They can still get damages, though, and the burden is on the accused for proving unclean hands, so they might be able to weasel out of it.
American user here, requesting the NIST start migrating America to pure metric. I've done about all I can to prepare myself for metric - I can't do any more unless more people start switching as well, and the only way to really do that seems to be government mandate.
This is called "herd immunity" - if 90% or so are immune, the disease cannot transmit frequently enough to infect the remaining 10%.
However, this ONLY affects diseases that spread via human-to-human contact. If the disease is able to transmit via, say, animals, or can lay dormant for some time, the herd immunity is compromised.
There is also the fact that even with vaccination, some people will catch the disease. Even if it's only a 1% failure rate, that can exacerbate the problem of people not vaccinating enough to compromise herd immunity.
I fully believe that there is something to be gained by reading your forums. Not every single post - just the ones that catch your eye, or seem to be highly-read. Sure, there's going to be a lot of crap, but there's plenty of good ideas out there too.
However, there is very little to be gained by responding to your forums. At most, you might say "actually, that does seem like a good idea", or "I already discussed this in a blog article several months ago. It just doesn't work.". Responding to even half of the stupid, short-sighted and ignorant ideas people post would be a massive waste of time, and would probably drive anyone insane.
Well, aerial combat is almost always at beyond-visual-range nowadays. The thing could be painted florescent pink and it wouldn't affect its abilities in combat. The only thing that matters is radar and stuff.
What the fthagn is this? A Fox News article on /.? And it's actually accurate, non-politicized reporting on a scientific matter?
Apparently, I have entered the Bizarro World. Or perhaps the Mirror Universe. I can't be dreaming, because I'm not surrounded by hot women in tiny outfits, but something is most definitely WRONG here, and I aim to find out what.
Those who purchase RAM as an upgrade, or for a custom build, will probably see a pretty decent lowering in price.
I am aware that my "assertion" was not backed by evidence. That is, in fact, why I posted - I was searching for additional data with which to draw a conclusion.
Any advertising agency worth a cent would have conducted exit polls and other research to determine the effectiveness of the ad. If Wikipedia contracted to someone to do the ad, they're almost certain to have some statistics on the subject. However, if they did it in-house (quite likely), they may not have done so.
No. I am suggesting that the ad cost more than it brought in - many of those who donated probably would have done so without any advertising. Also, remember that the ad was considered, by some, to be rather annoying - the ad had a secondary cost of people who intended to donate but chose not too after being bothered by the advertising.
That banner ad wasn't just annoying - it was a rather large image, and it changed often enough that it wasn't always in cache. Given that, I suspect the ad itself was responsible for quite a bit of server load - possibly more than it brought in. I also doubt the ad was that effective. It could even have been counter-productive - "Jimmy is watching you" photoshops are now a minor meme, and not the kind an advertising agency wants to create.
So, we have an ad that was (for a non-profit) somewhat expensive, and was not (in my estimation) particularly effective. I would like to see some more in-depth analysis of that ad's cost-effectiveness, or lack thereof.
Because if Airbus didn't make the deal, Boeing would, and then Airbus wouldn't have the consolation of "sold a bunch of planes to China before they figured out how to do it themselves".
Numbers make no sense without context. If we put our entire GDP into paying off debt, how long would it take to pay it off? About a year (WolframAlpha puts it at 0.98 years). That's still something that's plausible to pay off. Not to mention the fact that, while the US owes other countries money, we too have our debtors.
Uh, "wholesale destruction" isn't what's happening to the US, and China can take little credit for the decline that is happening. At worst, the US is having a slump, caused by incompetent leadership and short-sighted financial policy, combined with a media that doesn't "report" the news so much as it "spins" the news.
Especially since Google is a lot more than search. Youtube, obviously, is a pretty big deal. GMail might be a big one. Chrome's a pretty big browser nowadays. Google Maps is pretty big. Android's rather unlikely to be blocked, but it would also be a pretty big deal. Ads would be a rather odd block, but if sites aren't getting any ad revenue from Italian visitors, they might block them as well, causing a chain-reaction of sites blocking Italy.
Trust me, America's gotten laughed at plenty. Everybody just laughs quietly, or behind our backs, because we've got enough firepower to end any country around.
Google went toe-to-toe with the People's Republic of China, arguably the second-most-powerful nation on the planet. And they won. Sure, China didn't exactly lose, but Google got exactly what it wanted.
Maga-corporations have nearly as much power as governments. Fortunately, Google seems to be one of the "good guys", for a slightly looser definition of "good" than I prefer.
Simple. Youtube will stop working in Italy, probably posting something along the lines of "New government regulations make it financially unfeasible for us to continue operations in this country. For more information, please contact your representative."
After enough congresspeople (or whatever they're called in Italy) get tired of hearing people complaining that Youtube is blocked, the law gets repealed.
While I don't actually disagree with you on that, this story doesn't say anything about skill. This was purely a count of "cooperative actions" - deploying a medkit for teammates, marking enemy positions, and such. Skill wasn't involved - teamwork was.
1) Correct - it is false to conclude from this alone that PC > consoles. However, it's definitely evidence in the favor. 2) They're pretty much identical, except for input device and, on the PC, more configurability on the graphics. 3) Data does not support this - there are more players on the XBox version or the PS3 version than on the PC. So, then, it's even more surprising that the PC showed more cooperation.
I didn't actually hear any "Metallica" music. Sure, it was definitely Metallica-like, but you can't sue for "playing music sorta-kinda similar to the stuff we play".
About the only reference to Metallica was in the song's title: in the recorded version of "Anesthesia - Pulling Teeth" (from the "Kill 'em All" album), Cliff Burton said the words "bass solo, take one"; this is homaged by the song's title, "PAM Solo, Take One". There is literally nothing remotely lawsuit-capable in this.
Hell, even if PAM was to start playing "Enter Sandman", they couldn't sue. You can't sue someone for playing a cover version of your song, something Metallica knows full well (they released a 2-disc compilation of covers, and often play covers in concert).
Can we officially cut the band a break? They filed one lawsuit that was hypocritical and rather stupid, but that was years ago. Since then, they haven't really done anything worthy of hate. Well, maybe "St. Anger", but they apologized for that one.
I'd heard of them; none of them were intended to replace English, but rather to fill some special linguistic role, such as communication between aviators, or as a teaching tool.