Nowhere near all of those 52 are Power-based processors, though. Most of those are specialized chips handling things like transmission controller algorithms, power supply, and data stream coprocessors.
3 or 4 Power chips is about right; I forget if the 5/7 series use an integrated PCM or not - expect one doing telematics, one doing chassis control, and one doing ECM. If its seperate TCM/ECU, stick 2 Power chips in there.
For the most part, there's no difference between having the advertisers and the media doing the research. The rare difference is when an advertiser isn't comfortable with something (risque shows and family values products, etc.), or when the information in question is regarding the advertiser (cigarette toxicity reporting and the cigarette companies).
For the most part, the reporting that's done by mass media is admirably suited to the desires of the average reader. It's just that the average IQ of a conglomerate of people decreases as the number of people in the conglomerate increases.
The WSJ shouldn't cover niche content; alternately, they've found their niche, and it is coverage of large scale business and financial issues. You know why? That's what their readers, as a whole, are interested in.
If there was something the majority of the WSJ's readers were interested in, they'd be covering it. The problem isn't that the news aren't covering things of majority interest; the problem is that the majority of readers areas of overlapping interests are somewhat limited. As the number of readers you have increases, the content you can conceivably cover grows more limited in nature; anything too esoteric is going to be left behind for smaller publications to pick up.
If you think media don't listen to their audiences desires as is, you're insane. They don't necessarily listen to *your* specific desires; that's not at all the same thing.
Noise-cancellation does exactly that, when working.
-1 + +1 = 0. Sound is a roughly linear phenomena, in the range of human hearing (I'm not talking about the non-linear sound effects you get from explosions, truly giant things like rockets, etc.) and therefore superposition holds.
a) It's called compression. It doesn't clip peaks in the signal; it reduces dynamic range.
b) It's used in radio, highly produced music (like most pop music), and anything even remotely related to advertising, to allow a sound to carry more energy within a constrained peak amplitude range.
c) It's used in mass market movies, especially action movies, to provide more impact. Dramatic movies, serious movies, and indie stuff tend not to use it since it doesn't suit their needs - just like music, where classical, jazz, and most independent artists use compression as a tool for good, not evil (compression isn't inherently bad... if the producer knows how to use it.)
Sorry. Newspapers (and broadcast media in general) have limited resources, and generally speaking aren't going to employ paid staffers to cover niche content. It's not profitable for them, they have no incentive to cater to anything but the masses.
The solution is to accept community content for niche sites, but by doing so you do loosen journalistic standards; any niche large enough to support paid journalism can easily be fed at this time by niche publications. Why would the New York Times cover, for example, the zine community, when the zine community can (and does) cover itself? Why would the WSJ cover the Grand Rapids indie rock/music production scene?
Content of interest to few people won't be covered by most media outlets. No matter how nice it would be to hear updates on the music scene my friends are involved in these days, or read coverage in mainstream news outlets of the current developments in blind adaptive filtering, it isn't reasonable to expect that.
Niche publications will publish niche news; mainstream publications, mainstream news. The NYT has inadequate financial incentive to cover true niche content; that content is already well handle by niche publishers.
Basically, there's no good reason for them to do so, so why *would* they cover niche interests?
Just tested it on my RAZR, which uses the same software and screen as the ROKR AFAIK. Complained about cookies for me, which may or may not be a function of Tmobile. But in theory they should all work... they all use the same software codebase, and some of them are even firmware cross-compatible.
(I'm not a mobile apps dev, I just work for a cellphone company. Not, for the record, for their cell division.)
Unless the ROKR isn't P2K based (and I see no reason to believe it isn't), it's going to be using pretty much the same internal software as the triplets series, which *are* compatible.
I would have expected the ROKR to work, based on Google speccing the v300 and v600 as functional. Guess I should check with my RAZR later and see if it works.
I have a 12-24/4.0 Tokina for my Nikon. I love it, but I'd *never* trade my 50/1.8 for it. The wide angle is nice, but I find I use it for special reasons. The 50 focal is a great focal length, and having f1.8 available allows me to play DOF tricks. The fact that, brand new, it cost me 100 bucks doesn't hurt. Plus, when it comes to the fixed primes - those lens designs have been optimized over *decades* at this point. Zooms are still being tweaked, but lens geometry on a fast prime is fitted to a T.
Sigma/Tamron/Tokina make decent lenses, and *sometimes* their lenses are better than the 1st party lenses. But they also make some very cheap lenses, and their best still doesn't compare to the best that Nikon and Canon can put out. For instance, my 12-24; Tokina's is just as good as, or even better than, Nikon's, while being half the price. On the other hand, I have a 70-300 from Tamron. It's trash; it was cheap trash, which is why I have it (I needed *something* for tele, and it does function okay as a macro lens), but given the choice I'd certainly have gone after Nikon's 2.8 tele lens instead. I don't reject 3rd party lenses offhand, but like anything else - do the research before you slap down the plastic.
(The slower/louder AF is usually due to using a screw-drive AF instead of the newer PWM motor drive AF used in many of the 1st party, and some 3rd party, lenses.)
Parve is actually a very specific meaning within the general meaning of kosher. Parve foods contain no milk, no milk by-product; nor do they contain meat or animal by-products. (Fish is considered parve; poultry is not. Interestingly, while most parve foods may be consumed with meat, fish cannot.) Kosher-marked foods follow the laws of kashrut, but may contain dairy or meat.
Traditionally, the markings are:
K or a circled U - Kosher. A D by the U/K - Kosher, contains dairy. Pareve, parve or p or P - Parve, contains no dairy.
Generally speaking, kosher meat isn't packaged, so I'm not aware of any generally accepted marking for a kosher meat. Thinking about it, though, there are kosher hot dogs; they must have some marking on them, but I can't for the life of me think of it.
(A cousin is a shoichet - a kosher slaughterer/butcher.)
This is why we stick the engineering teams on 6 out of 7 floors, and all support personal on the top floor. There's one secretary per floor to handle the necessaries. It makes HR giddy to be up on 7, they feel important, and we get left alone.
If somebody in my team needs something from me, they say in a loud voice "Hey, Kiryat." I walk the 10 feet to their cube. We talk about it. If someone else in team has something to interject, they do so. If it's something that needs to be private (salary discussions, performance reviews, customer discussions, etc.) there are plenty of conference rooms to be had, and there's always the lab if no one is in it.
I *like* my cubicle farm, most of the time. The rest of the time, there's always head phones, or working from home.
Apple partnered with Motorola because they had an existing business relationship, and because Motorola had an existing business relationship with the cellcos.
Had Apple just designed a phone and tried to sell the cellcos on it, it's likely the cellcos wouldn't have bought it at all.
Actually, it says 'The generic term "TCP/IP" usually means anything and everything related to the specific protocols of TCP and IP. It can include other protocols, applications, and even the network medium. A sample of these protocols are: UDP, ARP, and ICMP. A sample of these applications are: TELNET, FTP, and rcp. A more accurate term is "internet technology". A network that uses internet technology is called an "internet".'
But I choose to rephrase that as "You're an idiot."
Let's get it right: Metrowerks, which belongs to Freescale, not Motorola, is no longer supporting CodeWarrior *on desktop PPC platforms*. CodeWarrior for embedded PPC is doing just fine.
Because it is *legal* money, requiring no fencing, no laundering, and above all providing no legal risk to the individual finding the vulnerability.
And if you discover a pattern in one of your suppliers wherein a vulnerability they sell you always shows up with the blackhat organizations at the same time... well, that's why you required traceable identity information before you paid them.
The law, in this case, acts as the stick. Money, as always, is the carrot.
Unplugging my phone prevents me from taking calls I actually want: suppliers, certain coworkers, girls. Hanging up on the unimportant not only keeps me mostly uninterrupted, it provides me with some measure of satisfaction.
(Hint: (39.79 / 1.08) *.08 = 2.94740741 - if you want to be truly pedantic, get it right down to the last decimal - if you're just comparing less than or greater, the 4th decimal place just isn't that important.)
An 8% increase yielding 39.79 billion implies that the revenue was 36.84 billion, meaning that 8% is 2.94 billion, meaning that the 8% increase is *not*, in fact, greater than Apple's total revenue of 3.52 billion.
Brought to you by the Association For Numerical Fact Checks, a division of Mathematical Bitch Slaps Inc.
Slashdot Mirror
Nowhere near all of those 52 are Power-based processors, though. Most of those are specialized chips handling things like transmission controller algorithms, power supply, and data stream coprocessors.
3 or 4 Power chips is about right; I forget if the 5/7 series use an integrated PCM or not - expect one doing telematics, one doing chassis control, and one doing ECM. If its seperate TCM/ECU, stick 2 Power chips in there.
For the most part, there's no difference between having the advertisers and the media doing the research. The rare difference is when an advertiser isn't comfortable with something (risque shows and family values products, etc.), or when the information in question is regarding the advertiser (cigarette toxicity reporting and the cigarette companies).
For the most part, the reporting that's done by mass media is admirably suited to the desires of the average reader. It's just that the average IQ of a conglomerate of people decreases as the number of people in the conglomerate increases.
No.
The WSJ shouldn't cover niche content; alternately, they've found their niche, and it is coverage of large scale business and financial issues. You know why? That's what their readers, as a whole, are interested in.
If there was something the majority of the WSJ's readers were interested in, they'd be covering it. The problem isn't that the news aren't covering things of majority interest; the problem is that the majority of readers areas of overlapping interests are somewhat limited. As the number of readers you have increases, the content you can conceivably cover grows more limited in nature; anything too esoteric is going to be left behind for smaller publications to pick up.
If you think media don't listen to their audiences desires as is, you're insane. They don't necessarily listen to *your* specific desires; that's not at all the same thing.
Noise-cancellation does exactly that, when working.
-1 + +1 = 0. Sound is a roughly linear phenomena, in the range of human hearing (I'm not talking about the non-linear sound effects you get from explosions, truly giant things like rockets, etc.) and therefore superposition holds.
Negative one plus positive one equals zero.
a) It's called compression. It doesn't clip peaks in the signal; it reduces dynamic range.
b) It's used in radio, highly produced music (like most pop music), and anything even remotely related to advertising, to allow a sound to carry more energy within a constrained peak amplitude range.
c) It's used in mass market movies, especially action movies, to provide more impact. Dramatic movies, serious movies, and indie stuff tend not to use it since it doesn't suit their needs - just like music, where classical, jazz, and most independent artists use compression as a tool for good, not evil (compression isn't inherently bad... if the producer knows how to use it.)
Sorry. Newspapers (and broadcast media in general) have limited resources, and generally speaking aren't going to employ paid staffers to cover niche content. It's not profitable for them, they have no incentive to cater to anything but the masses.
The solution is to accept community content for niche sites, but by doing so you do loosen journalistic standards; any niche large enough to support paid journalism can easily be fed at this time by niche publications. Why would the New York Times cover, for example, the zine community, when the zine community can (and does) cover itself? Why would the WSJ cover the Grand Rapids indie rock/music production scene?
Content of interest to few people won't be covered by most media outlets. No matter how nice it would be to hear updates on the music scene my friends are involved in these days, or read coverage in mainstream news outlets of the current developments in blind adaptive filtering, it isn't reasonable to expect that.
Niche publications will publish niche news; mainstream publications, mainstream news. The NYT has inadequate financial incentive to cover true niche content; that content is already well handle by niche publishers.
Basically, there's no good reason for them to do so, so why *would* they cover niche interests?
Judging from the use of pounds and the 200 pound price tag, it probably *is* a Rabbit diesel pickup.
What you want to read about?
What I want to read about?
Would be drowned out in a tidal wave of celebrity gossip, if newspapers actually went be what most people wanted.
Just tested it on my RAZR, which uses the same software and screen as the ROKR AFAIK. Complained about cookies for me, which may or may not be a function of Tmobile. But in theory they should all work... they all use the same software codebase, and some of them are even firmware cross-compatible.
(I'm not a mobile apps dev, I just work for a cellphone company. Not, for the record, for their cell division.)
Unless the ROKR isn't P2K based (and I see no reason to believe it isn't), it's going to be using pretty much the same internal software as the triplets series, which *are* compatible.
I would have expected the ROKR to work, based on Google speccing the v300 and v600 as functional. Guess I should check with my RAZR later and see if it works.
I have a 12-24/4.0 Tokina for my Nikon. I love it, but I'd *never* trade my 50/1.8 for it. The wide angle is nice, but I find I use it for special reasons. The 50 focal is a great focal length, and having f1.8 available allows me to play DOF tricks. The fact that, brand new, it cost me 100 bucks doesn't hurt. Plus, when it comes to the fixed primes - those lens designs have been optimized over *decades* at this point. Zooms are still being tweaked, but lens geometry on a fast prime is fitted to a T.
Sigma/Tamron/Tokina make decent lenses, and *sometimes* their lenses are better than the 1st party lenses. But they also make some very cheap lenses, and their best still doesn't compare to the best that Nikon and Canon can put out. For instance, my 12-24; Tokina's is just as good as, or even better than, Nikon's, while being half the price. On the other hand, I have a 70-300 from Tamron. It's trash; it was cheap trash, which is why I have it (I needed *something* for tele, and it does function okay as a macro lens), but given the choice I'd certainly have gone after Nikon's 2.8 tele lens instead. I don't reject 3rd party lenses offhand, but like anything else - do the research before you slap down the plastic.
(The slower/louder AF is usually due to using a screw-drive AF instead of the newer PWM motor drive AF used in many of the 1st party, and some 3rd party, lenses.)
Parve is actually a very specific meaning within the general meaning of kosher. Parve foods contain no milk, no milk by-product; nor do they contain meat or animal by-products. (Fish is considered parve; poultry is not. Interestingly, while most parve foods may be consumed with meat, fish cannot.) Kosher-marked foods follow the laws of kashrut, but may contain dairy or meat.
Traditionally, the markings are:
K or a circled U - Kosher.
A D by the U/K - Kosher, contains dairy.
Pareve, parve or p or P - Parve, contains no dairy.
Generally speaking, kosher meat isn't packaged, so I'm not aware of any generally accepted marking for a kosher meat. Thinking about it, though, there are kosher hot dogs; they must have some marking on them, but I can't for the life of me think of it.
(A cousin is a shoichet - a kosher slaughterer/butcher.)
I don't know about the 18-55, but the 18-70 that comes with the D70 *is* a worthwhile lens to pick up.
And on any DSLR body, Nikon, Canon, *anything*, you owe it to yourself to pick up a 1.8/50 prime. They're cheap. You have no excuse not to.
This is why we stick the engineering teams on 6 out of 7 floors, and all support personal on the top floor. There's one secretary per floor to handle the necessaries. It makes HR giddy to be up on 7, they feel important, and we get left alone.
If somebody in my team needs something from me, they say in a loud voice "Hey, Kiryat." I walk the 10 feet to their cube. We talk about it. If someone else in team has something to interject, they do so. If it's something that needs to be private (salary discussions, performance reviews, customer discussions, etc.) there are plenty of conference rooms to be had, and there's always the lab if no one is in it.
I *like* my cubicle farm, most of the time. The rest of the time, there's always head phones, or working from home.
Apple partnered with Motorola because they had an existing business relationship, and because Motorola had an existing business relationship with the cellcos.
Had Apple just designed a phone and tried to sell the cellcos on it, it's likely the cellcos wouldn't have bought it at all.
RFC1180 says you're an idiot.
Actually, it says 'The generic term "TCP/IP" usually means anything and everything related to the specific protocols of TCP and IP. It can include other protocols, applications, and even the network medium. A sample of these protocols are: UDP, ARP, and ICMP. A sample of these applications are: TELNET, FTP, and rcp. A more accurate term is "internet technology". A network that uses internet technology is called an "internet".'
But I choose to rephrase that as "You're an idiot."
Nah, they both taste like beef.
Which oddly enough, tastes like buffalo.
Mmmmmm.
Buffalo.
Lunchtime!
Which requires a whole new maskset, a different production line, etc, etc.
The design costs? Slightly cheaper, of course. But the manufacturing cost will more than eat up that difference.
For a few trillionths of a second?
I couldn't agree with you more.
Let's get it right: Metrowerks, which belongs to Freescale, not Motorola, is no longer supporting CodeWarrior *on desktop PPC platforms*. CodeWarrior for embedded PPC is doing just fine.
Because it is *legal* money, requiring no fencing, no laundering, and above all providing no legal risk to the individual finding the vulnerability.
And if you discover a pattern in one of your suppliers wherein a vulnerability they sell you always shows up with the blackhat organizations at the same time... well, that's why you required traceable identity information before you paid them.
The law, in this case, acts as the stick. Money, as always, is the carrot.
Unplugging my phone prevents me from taking calls I actually want: suppliers, certain coworkers, girls. Hanging up on the unimportant not only keeps me mostly uninterrupted, it provides me with some measure of satisfaction.
Too bad the answer isn't 2.9472, then.
.08 = 2.94740741 - if you want to be truly pedantic, get it right down to the last decimal - if you're just comparing less than or greater, the 4th decimal place just isn't that important.)
(Hint: (39.79 / 1.08) *
Also, it's "being", not "beind".
The statement as written was false. Don't try and point out it would have been true some other year as an argument against that fact.
An 8% increase yielding 39.79 billion implies that the revenue was 36.84 billion, meaning that 8% is 2.94 billion, meaning that the 8% increase is *not*, in fact, greater than Apple's total revenue of 3.52 billion.
Brought to you by the Association For Numerical Fact Checks, a division of Mathematical Bitch Slaps Inc.