I don't get this "because it's al-jazeera, it must be biased".
Please don't take this post as an insult against Al-Jazeera, but more as an explanation. As they're primarily in Arab normally nobody references them as a source. The first time I heard the name, in fact maybe the first ten times I heard the name was after 9/11 and mostly something like "New message from Osama bin Laden (source: Al-Jazeera)". It didn't take much to get the impression they were a pro-Arab al-Qaeda mouthpiece, and I think that first impression has stuck with many. They're far more known by reputation than by people that actually read any of their journalism and is qualified to say whether it's biased or not.
Funny how I didn't hear any such objections when it was "Mozilla passes X million downloads". In fact, it was all hyped up how much one download could be a thousand corporate PCs. So it's not comparable to say iTunes sales, but it shows that free apps is a big reason people get an iPhone. Plus it's rather disingenuous attempt to imply that free downloads are worthless. Downloads of the Facebook app is very valuable to both Apple and Facebook, even if they aren't charging you for it. Sure there's trivial apps but it's like Firefox's endless extensions, some of them are pretty damn worthless but you don't hear people complain about that, at least not on slashdot.
It's not exactly news that Apple-bashing has been popular here since the first iPod. Not to mention the vastly exaggerated claims of open source being the source of Apple's success. So they took a BSD kernel and adopted certain unixisms, but in terms of what sells Apple it's like bragging over delivering the plumbing to an award winning building design. Apple has done great and they've done it almost all on their own and none of the spotlight has even reflected on open source. I would bet that 99.99% of Apple's customers doesn't even know and wouldn't have known the difference if it had been some proprietary kernel.
Is everything perfect in Apple's walled garden? Of course not, but so far my experience with my iPhone has been great minus the people who wrote the alarm clock. Neither is it perfect in the One Microsoft Way, but it's hardly that in the Linux bazaar either. I'm sick and tired of these three phrases:
1. If you want it fixed, write a patch for it. That's the beauty of open source. 2. Well, you got what you paid for. You've got nothing to complain about. 3. If you dislike it so much, why don't you go back to Windows (Winblows, Micro$oft)?
It's the unholy trinity of "We don't have a problem, you do. Now fuck off." even if you complain about something that's obviously broken for a common use case and makes using it hopeless. And through anti-proprietary fanaticism there's usually not a single commercial alternative even if the money is burning in my pocket. I've pretty much decided to abandon Linux after 3.5 years as my primary desktop and go either Mac or Windows, I just haven't decided which yet. Because I want my choice back, if whatever open source delivers doesn't work I'll go buy something that (probably) does.
Playing the lottery I can understand, it's that hope that things can change. That even if you live in a trailer park today, next week you could be a millionaire. It's a slim hope but it's always much better than no hope. What I don't understand around here are the people gambling at slot machines - no, I'm no talking about any Las Vegas kind where you can hit a jackpot but where you put on $5 and get maybe $2000 max. Sure, if that happens on the first game you walk away with a $1995 net but in reality 99.9% of the players keep playing until they've lost money in total, and the lucky 0.1% are usually only a few hundred dollars ahead. That is just plain stupid and pointless.
Well what I suggested can also be done on a mass scale of smaller websites, individually that would hurt each site but if large parts of the Internet goes dark then customers will complain, consumer authorities will start questioning if they're really selling Internet access and things like that. As a purely practical matter I don't think it's possible anyway, my ISP in Norway is never going to get in direct talks with slashdot's ISP and the thousands of other ISPs out there. They'll just have some broad deals with an upstream provider to send and receive traffic, it's possible to put some sites on a shitlist but I think there will always be "everything else" traffic.
If they start trying to gang up on the content providers, what's to stop the content providers from ganging up on them? Oh yeah you want to offer Internet... bring say the top 5 companies like Google (search, youtube, docs), Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and eBay on board and hand ISPs the ultimatum - don't charge us or put us on second tier, or we will all block your ISP from using our services. The customers will scream bloody murder and complain that what you're delivering isn't the Internet, but your call. In fact, once you've pushed them together in an alliance maybe they find that they are in a position to charge the ISPs, not the other way around. After all, many people have more than one ISP to choose from but there's only one YouTube and one Facebook.
You misunderstand the grand-parent. What he's saying is that it's senseless to say that Betelgeuse has blown up hundreds of years ago if all the effects from the event can only be felt now. (...) For all intents and purposes, you may as well treat the event as having happened the moment you've witnessed it.
Ok, let's say it happens right now. If I get into my lightspeed car and drive to Betelgeuse which takes me 600 years (earth time, no time will pass for me) will I be seeing the remains of a 600 year old explosion or a 1200 year old explosion? If you want to observe time like that then how long since it was since something happened depends on where you are. That is extremely unlogical, complicated and the only reason it works is because practically you're not able to go further than 0.05 lightseconds without leaving earth.
If you look back at the time this code of conduct was written, being gay was not fine. In many if not most places sodomy was a criminal offense, named after a den of sin in the Bible. It was an offense against God they'd put people in prison over, it certainly wasn't anything people wanted to introduce children to as normal - not that they thought children should know much of sex at all. This "idiocy" is almost 2000 years of history that we've radically altered in the last 50 years. My country went from gay being illegal to fully equalized same sex marriage in 37 years - 1972 to 2009. The code should have been updated to stay with the times but you're now looking at it with completely different glasses than the contemporary society.
The question is more are you actually going to retaliate against the attacker or is it like "Let's send some rockets back into that city, because that's where they came from." Anyone launching an attack directly from their own computer is a total amateur, chances are great it'll be some unsuspecting third party's machines and networks that'll be your battle ground. And I very much doubt they care who started it, they're likely to go after everyone that's been hacking their systems when they first find out. If I go on vacation and find two gangs have trashed my apartment I'm not really going to care who started it.
Long story short, our full motion is measured relative to the background radiation. The earth rotates around itself, around the sun, the sun rotates around the milky way and the milky way is moving itself. In total we move about 0.2% of lightspeed, and time dilation is relative to the fraction of c squared so time goes about 0.0004% faster than at rest. Imagine you stuck your finger in still water, the circle it'd make would continue to grow and the wave would go on forever but get thinner and thinner. Same thing with the universe, the distance to the edge keeps increasing but the earth and moon isn't being pulled apart by space "stretching". All this is really on a much grander scale though, in terms of a planet 600 light years ago it's like asking if you can find your way down to the corner store without taking into account that earth is round.
The difficulty is in trying to get an accurate angle measurement, even taking pictures from both sides of the earth we only get a ~13000 km wide angle which is small when you're trying to see an object ~5000000000000000 km away. For Betelgeuse wikipedia lists the distance as 643 ± 146 ly so the uncertainty is almost 300 ly. If we could travel even a tiny bit in any direction that'd matter on a stellar scale and photograph the sky we'd have much, much, much better estimates on the distances. That said, we can still do a lot more from earth or near earth than we have so far and there's plans for far better telescopes than today, first up probably the James Webb Space Telescope in 2014 or 2015. Also ground based telescopes keep getting larger and better, even though the atmosphere limits them somewhat.
As geeks we all understand that in our frame of reference Betelgeuse has not exploded yet, and it is our frame of reference that counts in this situation.
If the GP was pedantic, your post is just fail. You can't say a lightning strike hasn't happened yet because you haven't heard the thunder. Frame of reference only means what you're measuring relative to, a car goes 50 mph relative to earth because that is our frame of reference. If you traveled near lightspeed your frame of reference would move faster through time than mine. But using our reference, the star would have to have exploded 600 years ago just like lightning struck 5 seconds ago.
Most people I've talked to in the US tend to have one to two options. Think Norway without Telenor being forced to rent out any of its lines, it would mostly be them and possibly some cable company. And to the degree they are forced to rent out lines, it happens at prices so high it doesn't actually provide competition. You should realize Norway goes much further than in the US to restore competition to markets, in fact quite far on a world wide basis. In the US the only time you'd see regulation and anti-trust is if there's really blatant and open abuse of a monopoly. Also where we can react much more quickly with regulation, in the US it often takes a very long court case which typically means the victims have been forced to leave the market long ago and get a cash payout while the monopoly continues. And in terms of a global IPv6 migration, Norway isn't even a footnote of the ~2 billion people that involves migrating.
Not to mention cost averse. About 99 times out of a hundred being among the first is expensive, people spend a lot of time figuring out how to do it, companies take big margins because their estimates are uncertain and so on. Those that can wait until this is a bog standard migration service from people that's already done this several times.
Yep, with the 5.5eV band gap you surely can turn a diamond device off. And it does have really great (the best, actually) thermal properties. But...it's really hard to get a useful n-type material (gotta boron-dope it first - which is easily done and makes a diamond p-type semiconductor - then expose it to a deuterium - yes, deuterium, not hydrogen - plasma, to passivate the boron acceptors and form some shallow donors); and there's no convenient native oxide like Si has; and etc....
You know, for a while there I was in doubt if this was a serious post or a "you just need to invert the shield polarity of the flux capacitator" post...
If it had been installed through Mozilla's extension installation process, you would be right. Except it isn't, it's installed by Skype. It's a problem you have on all platforms as far as I know, any installer can write all over the place. Personally I think it would have been rather nice to have a system where the skype installer only got access to the skype directory. Not like UAC or sudo which gives you all the keys to the kingdom, but a much more fine grained permission.
Embrace is going to far, but they're looking for DRM customers will tolerate. Or more correctly they're moving towards a system where DRM is implicit to the system rather than explicit. WoW doesn't need a DRM system, it doesn't have to. That is why almost all games have killed off LAN play, you need their servers and a valid account to play multiplayer. For single player games they're moving more and more towards you having to have Steam or other online access, and if not they're moving more and more towards consoles that are heavily locked down. Granted, the current generation of consoles have their DRM broken but they were also a huge success before they got broken. Some 40-50 million people bought Angry Birds with Apple DRM as long as people doesn't see it getting in their way. We're not going to see DRM for software going away any time soon. And as long as we have that, Sony will continue to dream of DRM for video. It won't work, but that won't matter.
Content owners should get used to the idea that most people want to pay for what they get. They are decent people. They have pride. Sell them what they want. You're not going to sell stuff to the pirates, ever. The pirate market is as lost as it ever was. Offer the content to most people in a way they can pay for it quick and easy, and they will buy it. And when their sleazy unemployed cousin offers to share the latest hit movie he downloaded on bittorrent off the neighbors open wireless they'll sneer at him - and eventually he might learn that that's not how you impress decent folk. Or keep doing what you're doing and keep making him the family hero that gets the stuff they can't get any other way. Whatever works best for you.
Actually you're making the same mistake here as so many others, you put pirates on one side and customers on the other. Studies show time and time again that lots of people pirate then buy some of it, it's not an either-or they're both. And people use that, which Sony hates because they're not in control of the market. If GM doubled their car prices, well you'd see a lot less of their cars on the road. If Sony doubled their prices, people would buy half the number of DVDs yet watch just as much movies. They want the "good old days" back where if you're not buying it you're not getting it, even though those days aren't coming back. Broadband hasn't nearly reached its potential, even here in Norway which is quite far ahead bandwidth is still growing rapidly. Very soon they will have taught a whole generation how to torrent, and they will not undo that easily.
My home town is further north than Anchorage, Alaska so I think I know what I'm talking about. Get studded winter tires, not just snow tires. They're not nearly as nice to use on bare asphalt and about even on snow but on ice - solid ice, black ice, wet ice doesn't matter - it's a world of difference. Just about the only they don't grip on is a thin snow layer on top of ice, they have plenty grip on the snow but everything slides on the ice just like with snow tires. And while it won't help you stop, 4WD makes it much easier to get up icy slopes - one sane use for all the SUVs. Nothing wrong with driving on ice, you just need the right tools.
Instead, target the individual companies ( like facebook, google, shutterfly, ect... ) with this technology.
Except they don't need this silly thing to have an expiration date, they could simply remove the picture. The theory here is that anyone who saves the image will save their encrypted format instead of a normal JPG. The outcome is as expected, people that think they've "backed up" their files from Facebook will lose their pictures and anyone that really wants a copy will take a screenshot and save as PNG. It's like a lock that inconveniences the residents but doesn't keep a single crook out, I'm sure this will fly like a dodo with cement shoes.
It does sound like an avoidable mistake if you could see the tracks clearly. If the road was that difficult to make out, and there was ice under the snow, then I do think you should have been going slower, but maybe that's just me.
Visibility was poor but grip on the road was good as it was asphalt with light snow cover - essentially just the snow that was falling right then. The road was all white but it was quite easy to see the heaped up snow on the sides which is why I followed it a bit into the bus pocket. And I don't mean far, but by then I had two wheels on ice and slid like a damn curling stone. It was used maybe twice a day unlike the road which was driven by hundreds of cars, which is why there was ice only there. If the road had been icy, I would have gone slower.
As for the bus thing, then of course, if someone is suicidal then you can't avoid it, but that's a pretty stupid example. And there is still a human at fault there, even if it's not the driver.
Ok so I pulled that to the extreme, but every year there's some accidents where a kid came running out of nowhere or something like that. Practically you don't pass every car, every tree, every bush, every street corner and every doorway like someone is going to come running out full speed into the middle of the road. If you did the only places you'd drive the limit would be wide open fields.
It is. Best practices != software, and if he actually means copying coftware solutions you can bet most of it is closed source they'll have to buy more licenses for.
P.S. Most of the time,this means standardizing on the already most dominant solution. The odds of him throwing out something 90% use for something 10% use is minimal.
I was taught that basically all accidents are human error. This page claims it's at least 95%. Too many people try to blame external factors when in fact the accident was avoidable. I really don't like to hear that someone crashed "because it was raining/icy/snowy". They crashed because they were driving too fast for the conditions.
Every accident would be avoidable if you drive at 5 km/hr, no matter what the conditions are. The question is what is reasonable and unreasonable to expect, if you hide behind a tree near a high speed road and jump out in front of a trailer you will with 99% probability get splattered even if it's a perfect day and the driver goes no faster than the posted limit. But in retrospect you can always claim it's human error and too fast, even though that's how fast we actually expect people to go. In fact under good conditions they will fine you for being way below the limit.
Even if you're driving at speeds that seem reasonable given that it's snowy and icy you can get caught by surprise. I've been off the road once because I got tricked by a bus pocket. It was heavy snowfall, I was already going something like 50 km/h instead of the limit of 80 km/h and for the briefest of moments I followed the curve into the pocket. The road was quite well trafficked and worn clear, but in the pocket there was nothing but polished ice with light snow on top so nothing could get a grip. I couldn't steer, couldn't brake fast enough and went off the road at the end of the pocket. I checked now in a calculator and I couldn't have stopped on 15 meters of ice with with 30 km/h (20 mph) and one second reaction time.
I suppose you could call it human error. But either you assume I would have avoided the situation - which is unlikely - or it would really taken a massive speed reduction to avoid it. Like way, way below what people normally drive, even under those conditions. Either that makes 95% of us reckless or it's jusr acknowledging that driving that car at those speeds under those circumstances is an acceptable but non-zero risk for all the benefits and liberty it gives drivers and their passengers. Not that we shouldn't make roads and cars safer, but until something will literally block me from driving over a pedestrian or off the road we will have accidents.
Professional human drivers do make errors too. Not to mention what really makes a driver "professional", a fresh taxi driver has less experience than many "amateurs". Computers may not be distracted or sleepy or drunk but sensors certainly can by rain and snow and low sun. They too can miss that there's an oil spill on the road and go flying off it, or an elk about to cross the road. And while the theory says you're never supposed to go faster than that you can stop on what road is visible to you, that rule is often violated in practice. But then, most of us do hand over that trust when we're passengers ourselves. They just need to make it safer to trust the auto than trust the driver, not perfection...
Because at the post office you pay postage for every packet by size and weight but at your ISP you don't. Even inside large companies the profit centers rarely care if they step on the toes of some other profit center, if Comcast the ISP think they can turn a good profit on offering a service for the heavy users they most likely will. It just won't be at the same rate as the mom and pops that use it to check their email and read the online newspaper. As far as I've seen the problem in the US is more the lack of competition, as long as the other alternative doesn't upgrade they don't need to either, so they can continue to take huge margins on old and downpaid equipment. So they cap to avoid having to improve the network unless someone forces them to.
Yes, but somebody wins when you cut costs. If you stream more movies, the customer gets more and is probably willing to pay more. Or you can create a limited streaming subscription for people that watch less than X hours with the same price but higher margins. Or lower the prices and make it up on volume. Or maybe it goes straight to Netflix's profits. Either way someone ends up better off (except the postal service).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get this "because it's al-jazeera, it must be biased".
Please don't take this post as an insult against Al-Jazeera, but more as an explanation. As they're primarily in Arab normally nobody references them as a source. The first time I heard the name, in fact maybe the first ten times I heard the name was after 9/11 and mostly something like "New message from Osama bin Laden (source: Al-Jazeera)". It didn't take much to get the impression they were a pro-Arab al-Qaeda mouthpiece, and I think that first impression has stuck with many. They're far more known by reputation than by people that actually read any of their journalism and is qualified to say whether it's biased or not.
Funny how I didn't hear any such objections when it was "Mozilla passes X million downloads". In fact, it was all hyped up how much one download could be a thousand corporate PCs. So it's not comparable to say iTunes sales, but it shows that free apps is a big reason people get an iPhone. Plus it's rather disingenuous attempt to imply that free downloads are worthless. Downloads of the Facebook app is very valuable to both Apple and Facebook, even if they aren't charging you for it. Sure there's trivial apps but it's like Firefox's endless extensions, some of them are pretty damn worthless but you don't hear people complain about that, at least not on slashdot.
It's not exactly news that Apple-bashing has been popular here since the first iPod. Not to mention the vastly exaggerated claims of open source being the source of Apple's success. So they took a BSD kernel and adopted certain unixisms, but in terms of what sells Apple it's like bragging over delivering the plumbing to an award winning building design. Apple has done great and they've done it almost all on their own and none of the spotlight has even reflected on open source. I would bet that 99.99% of Apple's customers doesn't even know and wouldn't have known the difference if it had been some proprietary kernel.
Is everything perfect in Apple's walled garden? Of course not, but so far my experience with my iPhone has been great minus the people who wrote the alarm clock. Neither is it perfect in the One Microsoft Way, but it's hardly that in the Linux bazaar either. I'm sick and tired of these three phrases:
1. If you want it fixed, write a patch for it. That's the beauty of open source.
2. Well, you got what you paid for. You've got nothing to complain about.
3. If you dislike it so much, why don't you go back to Windows (Winblows, Micro$oft)?
It's the unholy trinity of "We don't have a problem, you do. Now fuck off." even if you complain about something that's obviously broken for a common use case and makes using it hopeless. And through anti-proprietary fanaticism there's usually not a single commercial alternative even if the money is burning in my pocket. I've pretty much decided to abandon Linux after 3.5 years as my primary desktop and go either Mac or Windows, I just haven't decided which yet. Because I want my choice back, if whatever open source delivers doesn't work I'll go buy something that (probably) does.
Playing the lottery I can understand, it's that hope that things can change. That even if you live in a trailer park today, next week you could be a millionaire. It's a slim hope but it's always much better than no hope. What I don't understand around here are the people gambling at slot machines - no, I'm no talking about any Las Vegas kind where you can hit a jackpot but where you put on $5 and get maybe $2000 max. Sure, if that happens on the first game you walk away with a $1995 net but in reality 99.9% of the players keep playing until they've lost money in total, and the lucky 0.1% are usually only a few hundred dollars ahead. That is just plain stupid and pointless.
Well what I suggested can also be done on a mass scale of smaller websites, individually that would hurt each site but if large parts of the Internet goes dark then customers will complain, consumer authorities will start questioning if they're really selling Internet access and things like that. As a purely practical matter I don't think it's possible anyway, my ISP in Norway is never going to get in direct talks with slashdot's ISP and the thousands of other ISPs out there. They'll just have some broad deals with an upstream provider to send and receive traffic, it's possible to put some sites on a shitlist but I think there will always be "everything else" traffic.
If they start trying to gang up on the content providers, what's to stop the content providers from ganging up on them? Oh yeah you want to offer Internet... bring say the top 5 companies like Google (search, youtube, docs), Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and eBay on board and hand ISPs the ultimatum - don't charge us or put us on second tier, or we will all block your ISP from using our services. The customers will scream bloody murder and complain that what you're delivering isn't the Internet, but your call. In fact, once you've pushed them together in an alliance maybe they find that they are in a position to charge the ISPs, not the other way around. After all, many people have more than one ISP to choose from but there's only one YouTube and one Facebook.
You misunderstand the grand-parent. What he's saying is that it's senseless to say that Betelgeuse has blown up hundreds of years ago if all the effects from the event can only be felt now. (...) For all intents and purposes, you may as well treat the event as having happened the moment you've witnessed it.
Ok, let's say it happens right now. If I get into my lightspeed car and drive to Betelgeuse which takes me 600 years (earth time, no time will pass for me) will I be seeing the remains of a 600 year old explosion or a 1200 year old explosion? If you want to observe time like that then how long since it was since something happened depends on where you are. That is extremely unlogical, complicated and the only reason it works is because practically you're not able to go further than 0.05 lightseconds without leaving earth.
If you look back at the time this code of conduct was written, being gay was not fine. In many if not most places sodomy was a criminal offense, named after a den of sin in the Bible. It was an offense against God they'd put people in prison over, it certainly wasn't anything people wanted to introduce children to as normal - not that they thought children should know much of sex at all. This "idiocy" is almost 2000 years of history that we've radically altered in the last 50 years. My country went from gay being illegal to fully equalized same sex marriage in 37 years - 1972 to 2009. The code should have been updated to stay with the times but you're now looking at it with completely different glasses than the contemporary society.
The question is more are you actually going to retaliate against the attacker or is it like "Let's send some rockets back into that city, because that's where they came from." Anyone launching an attack directly from their own computer is a total amateur, chances are great it'll be some unsuspecting third party's machines and networks that'll be your battle ground. And I very much doubt they care who started it, they're likely to go after everyone that's been hacking their systems when they first find out. If I go on vacation and find two gangs have trashed my apartment I'm not really going to care who started it.
Long story short, our full motion is measured relative to the background radiation. The earth rotates around itself, around the sun, the sun rotates around the milky way and the milky way is moving itself. In total we move about 0.2% of lightspeed, and time dilation is relative to the fraction of c squared so time goes about 0.0004% faster than at rest. Imagine you stuck your finger in still water, the circle it'd make would continue to grow and the wave would go on forever but get thinner and thinner. Same thing with the universe, the distance to the edge keeps increasing but the earth and moon isn't being pulled apart by space "stretching". All this is really on a much grander scale though, in terms of a planet 600 light years ago it's like asking if you can find your way down to the corner store without taking into account that earth is round.
The difficulty is in trying to get an accurate angle measurement, even taking pictures from both sides of the earth we only get a ~13000 km wide angle which is small when you're trying to see an object ~5000000000000000 km away. For Betelgeuse wikipedia lists the distance as 643 ± 146 ly so the uncertainty is almost 300 ly. If we could travel even a tiny bit in any direction that'd matter on a stellar scale and photograph the sky we'd have much, much, much better estimates on the distances. That said, we can still do a lot more from earth or near earth than we have so far and there's plans for far better telescopes than today, first up probably the James Webb Space Telescope in 2014 or 2015. Also ground based telescopes keep getting larger and better, even though the atmosphere limits them somewhat.
As geeks we all understand that in our frame of reference Betelgeuse has not exploded yet, and it is our frame of reference that counts in this situation.
If the GP was pedantic, your post is just fail. You can't say a lightning strike hasn't happened yet because you haven't heard the thunder. Frame of reference only means what you're measuring relative to, a car goes 50 mph relative to earth because that is our frame of reference. If you traveled near lightspeed your frame of reference would move faster through time than mine. But using our reference, the star would have to have exploded 600 years ago just like lightning struck 5 seconds ago.
Most people I've talked to in the US tend to have one to two options. Think Norway without Telenor being forced to rent out any of its lines, it would mostly be them and possibly some cable company. And to the degree they are forced to rent out lines, it happens at prices so high it doesn't actually provide competition. You should realize Norway goes much further than in the US to restore competition to markets, in fact quite far on a world wide basis. In the US the only time you'd see regulation and anti-trust is if there's really blatant and open abuse of a monopoly. Also where we can react much more quickly with regulation, in the US it often takes a very long court case which typically means the victims have been forced to leave the market long ago and get a cash payout while the monopoly continues. And in terms of a global IPv6 migration, Norway isn't even a footnote of the ~2 billion people that involves migrating.
Not to mention cost averse. About 99 times out of a hundred being among the first is expensive, people spend a lot of time figuring out how to do it, companies take big margins because their estimates are uncertain and so on. Those that can wait until this is a bog standard migration service from people that's already done this several times.
Yep, with the 5.5eV band gap you surely can turn a diamond device off. And it does have really great (the best, actually) thermal properties. But...it's really hard to get a useful n-type material (gotta boron-dope it first - which is easily done and makes a diamond p-type semiconductor - then expose it to a deuterium - yes, deuterium, not hydrogen - plasma, to passivate the boron acceptors and form some shallow donors); and there's no convenient native oxide like Si has; and etc....
You know, for a while there I was in doubt if this was a serious post or a "you just need to invert the shield polarity of the flux capacitator" post...
If it had been installed through Mozilla's extension installation process, you would be right. Except it isn't, it's installed by Skype. It's a problem you have on all platforms as far as I know, any installer can write all over the place. Personally I think it would have been rather nice to have a system where the skype installer only got access to the skype directory. Not like UAC or sudo which gives you all the keys to the kingdom, but a much more fine grained permission.
Embrace is going to far, but they're looking for DRM customers will tolerate. Or more correctly they're moving towards a system where DRM is implicit to the system rather than explicit. WoW doesn't need a DRM system, it doesn't have to. That is why almost all games have killed off LAN play, you need their servers and a valid account to play multiplayer. For single player games they're moving more and more towards you having to have Steam or other online access, and if not they're moving more and more towards consoles that are heavily locked down. Granted, the current generation of consoles have their DRM broken but they were also a huge success before they got broken. Some 40-50 million people bought Angry Birds with Apple DRM as long as people doesn't see it getting in their way. We're not going to see DRM for software going away any time soon. And as long as we have that, Sony will continue to dream of DRM for video. It won't work, but that won't matter.
Content owners should get used to the idea that most people want to pay for what they get. They are decent people. They have pride. Sell them what they want. You're not going to sell stuff to the pirates, ever. The pirate market is as lost as it ever was. Offer the content to most people in a way they can pay for it quick and easy, and they will buy it. And when their sleazy unemployed cousin offers to share the latest hit movie he downloaded on bittorrent off the neighbors open wireless they'll sneer at him - and eventually he might learn that that's not how you impress decent folk. Or keep doing what you're doing and keep making him the family hero that gets the stuff they can't get any other way. Whatever works best for you.
Actually you're making the same mistake here as so many others, you put pirates on one side and customers on the other. Studies show time and time again that lots of people pirate then buy some of it, it's not an either-or they're both. And people use that, which Sony hates because they're not in control of the market. If GM doubled their car prices, well you'd see a lot less of their cars on the road. If Sony doubled their prices, people would buy half the number of DVDs yet watch just as much movies. They want the "good old days" back where if you're not buying it you're not getting it, even though those days aren't coming back. Broadband hasn't nearly reached its potential, even here in Norway which is quite far ahead bandwidth is still growing rapidly. Very soon they will have taught a whole generation how to torrent, and they will not undo that easily.
I'll just settle for spacial coordinates - who needs DNS for stars? ;)
Never dealt with ice have you? ;-)
My home town is further north than Anchorage, Alaska so I think I know what I'm talking about. Get studded winter tires, not just snow tires. They're not nearly as nice to use on bare asphalt and about even on snow but on ice - solid ice, black ice, wet ice doesn't matter - it's a world of difference. Just about the only they don't grip on is a thin snow layer on top of ice, they have plenty grip on the snow but everything slides on the ice just like with snow tires. And while it won't help you stop, 4WD makes it much easier to get up icy slopes - one sane use for all the SUVs. Nothing wrong with driving on ice, you just need the right tools.
Instead, target the individual companies ( like facebook, google, shutterfly, ect... ) with this technology.
Except they don't need this silly thing to have an expiration date, they could simply remove the picture. The theory here is that anyone who saves the image will save their encrypted format instead of a normal JPG. The outcome is as expected, people that think they've "backed up" their files from Facebook will lose their pictures and anyone that really wants a copy will take a screenshot and save as PNG. It's like a lock that inconveniences the residents but doesn't keep a single crook out, I'm sure this will fly like a dodo with cement shoes.
It does sound like an avoidable mistake if you could see the tracks clearly. If the road was that difficult to make out, and there was ice under the snow, then I do think you should have been going slower, but maybe that's just me.
Visibility was poor but grip on the road was good as it was asphalt with light snow cover - essentially just the snow that was falling right then. The road was all white but it was quite easy to see the heaped up snow on the sides which is why I followed it a bit into the bus pocket. And I don't mean far, but by then I had two wheels on ice and slid like a damn curling stone. It was used maybe twice a day unlike the road which was driven by hundreds of cars, which is why there was ice only there. If the road had been icy, I would have gone slower.
As for the bus thing, then of course, if someone is suicidal then you can't avoid it, but that's a pretty stupid example. And there is still a human at fault there, even if it's not the driver.
Ok so I pulled that to the extreme, but every year there's some accidents where a kid came running out of nowhere or something like that. Practically you don't pass every car, every tree, every bush, every street corner and every doorway like someone is going to come running out full speed into the middle of the road. If you did the only places you'd drive the limit would be wide open fields.
It is. Best practices != software, and if he actually means copying coftware solutions you can bet most of it is closed source they'll have to buy more licenses for.
P.S. Most of the time ,this means standardizing on the already most dominant solution. The odds of him throwing out something 90% use for something 10% use is minimal.
I was taught that basically all accidents are human error. This page claims it's at least 95%. Too many people try to blame external factors when in fact the accident was avoidable. I really don't like to hear that someone crashed "because it was raining/icy/snowy". They crashed because they were driving too fast for the conditions.
Every accident would be avoidable if you drive at 5 km/hr, no matter what the conditions are. The question is what is reasonable and unreasonable to expect, if you hide behind a tree near a high speed road and jump out in front of a trailer you will with 99% probability get splattered even if it's a perfect day and the driver goes no faster than the posted limit. But in retrospect you can always claim it's human error and too fast, even though that's how fast we actually expect people to go. In fact under good conditions they will fine you for being way below the limit.
Even if you're driving at speeds that seem reasonable given that it's snowy and icy you can get caught by surprise. I've been off the road once because I got tricked by a bus pocket. It was heavy snowfall, I was already going something like 50 km/h instead of the limit of 80 km/h and for the briefest of moments I followed the curve into the pocket. The road was quite well trafficked and worn clear, but in the pocket there was nothing but polished ice with light snow on top so nothing could get a grip. I couldn't steer, couldn't brake fast enough and went off the road at the end of the pocket. I checked now in a calculator and I couldn't have stopped on 15 meters of ice with with 30 km/h (20 mph) and one second reaction time.
I suppose you could call it human error. But either you assume I would have avoided the situation - which is unlikely - or it would really taken a massive speed reduction to avoid it. Like way, way below what people normally drive, even under those conditions. Either that makes 95% of us reckless or it's jusr acknowledging that driving that car at those speeds under those circumstances is an acceptable but non-zero risk for all the benefits and liberty it gives drivers and their passengers. Not that we shouldn't make roads and cars safer, but until something will literally block me from driving over a pedestrian or off the road we will have accidents.
Professional human drivers do make errors too. Not to mention what really makes a driver "professional", a fresh taxi driver has less experience than many "amateurs". Computers may not be distracted or sleepy or drunk but sensors certainly can by rain and snow and low sun. They too can miss that there's an oil spill on the road and go flying off it, or an elk about to cross the road. And while the theory says you're never supposed to go faster than that you can stop on what road is visible to you, that rule is often violated in practice. But then, most of us do hand over that trust when we're passengers ourselves. They just need to make it safer to trust the auto than trust the driver, not perfection...
Because at the post office you pay postage for every packet by size and weight but at your ISP you don't. Even inside large companies the profit centers rarely care if they step on the toes of some other profit center, if Comcast the ISP think they can turn a good profit on offering a service for the heavy users they most likely will. It just won't be at the same rate as the mom and pops that use it to check their email and read the online newspaper. As far as I've seen the problem in the US is more the lack of competition, as long as the other alternative doesn't upgrade they don't need to either, so they can continue to take huge margins on old and downpaid equipment. So they cap to avoid having to improve the network unless someone forces them to.
Yes, but somebody wins when you cut costs. If you stream more movies, the customer gets more and is probably willing to pay more. Or you can create a limited streaming subscription for people that watch less than X hours with the same price but higher margins. Or lower the prices and make it up on volume. Or maybe it goes straight to Netflix's profits. Either way someone ends up better off (except the postal service).
Under US law, no. In any other jurisdiction, check your local law.