Last I knew, LJ was handling ~2 posts per second on average, and who knows how many more lookups into their DBs, plus the more generally intensive nature of their site (images, lots more distinct entries than Slashdot, so caching into memory is somewhat less effective).
I honestly don't think the traffic is even comparable.
You do realize that they don't own Internap, and that the *data center* died, right? They (Danga/Six Apart) probably were paying for battery backup and generator backup. It is not even *close* to their fault that the co-lo center didn't have such things, or had them improperly set up.
Many trolls get one free feeding from me, just in case.
If its still a troll after the free one, its either time to flame (i.e. I'm bored) or time to do something productive (i.e. go heatset all the shirts I just finished screening).
You see more than a few journalists being employed by the subject of their reporting, actually. Whenever a MSNBC analyst reports on Microsoft's latest business move, it is appropriate for them to note "MSNBC is part-owned by Microsoft." And generally they do.
Actually, from what info I could find on what they were actually *paid* to do, his role was mainly technical/strategy, in the sense of trying to help determine strategy, not in the sense of promoting it. They were paid for their work setting up the electronic infrastructure of the Dean campaign, and for their advice on direction of that infrastructure. Nowhere were they contractually obligated to promote Dean's message, as far as I can tell.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it. Even Zephyr isn't claiming they were contractually obligated to support the campaign; she's just stating that it was "implied", which is her view; Markos might have had a different understanding.
Zephyr's statements are probably as questionable as Markos's, since Zephyr is basically on a crusade right now to force bloggers to adhere to journalistic standards (whether or not you think this is good, it is definitely something that might affect statements made by Zephyr). And Markos at least revealed the connection, if not the possible depth of it.
And yeah, it still pales in comparison to taking government money to support a government viewpoint, and not admitting to any of it.
Of course, you're ignoring the fact that the columnist in question *admitted* he took money from DOE. He denies agreeing to run pro-administration columns in exchange for the money; however, since that might well be illegal, wouldn't you deny it? Admitting it in print would be pretty damn stupid.
As I said - you can argue whether the contract provision reported by USA Today is true, but there is NO QUESTION that he took money to run ads on a subject he then proceeded to write upon, in a manner extremely favorable towards the subject of those ads.
You can try to ignore it, but he fucked up, but good.
No.. it was treasury money, not Treasury money. It came from the treasury (wallet) of the US government. It specifically came from the budget of the Education Department, but they, like all Cabinet Departments, draw their funds from the treasury.
Gee, capitalization making a difference, who knew?
Seriously, this is not a conspiracy; it happened. You can argue whether (as USA Today states) he was contractually obligated to be favorable towards vouchers, but he definitely took money to run ads on them... and immediately afterward, wrote columns favorable of the Bush administration's position on the issue. This would be *incredibly* questionable, in and of itself. If he took the money with an additional obligation of running those columns, it is quite possibly illegal.
Seriously, all the best luck to you guys; hopefully you get some fantastic data out of it. I'm as excited about Huygens as I have been about Spirit/Opportunity, which is saying a lot.
If the field is produced inside of the conductor, explain to me exactly how it can emit without having a field line crossing through the conductor?
A shield broken by a wire is not a closed conducting surface, by the way, making your example completely outside the question, which is - how does a closed conducting shell know the difference between inside the shell and outside the shell? (Answer: it doesn't, and a *completely* closed conducting shell is a perfect shield for EM radiation).
Not all phones do, true. But some do. Which was my point. Further, *sufficient* 2.4 GHz phones *will* screw up a 2.4 GHz network. I could explain the math behind it to you, but I'll just tell you to read Shannon's Capacity Theorem until it gets through your fucking skull instead.
And you've just described "beating". Imagine that, instead of that 10k sine at 20khz sampling, you have a 9.99kHz sine at 20k sampling. The point on the waveform that you're sampling is going to slowly change from cycle to cycle, and you're going to wind up with a 9.99kHz sine wave amplitude modulating - "beating" - at 0.01kHz.
Buying them a new phone won't do any goddamn good, when the phone still uses 2.4 GHz. Spectrum is finite; unregulated spectrum interferes. I was giving an example; in the real world, if their cordless was interfering, I'd go downstairs and say "Hey, your phone is fucking up my wireless. Let me see it and I'll see if I can figure out how to set it to stay away from the channel my wireless runs on." But sooner or later (and when you live in a row of 3-flats, sooner is more likely than later) you run out of available channels. Spectrum is finite. Texas sucks. These are unarguable truths.
Oh, wait, you take things way too seriously, on fucking Slashdot of all places. Enjoy your vendetta, twit.
I was working on one of our lab machines... had an exposed serial connector hanging out. I was wearing a sweater (I know, I know... I should have been wearing a ground strap too.)
Zapped the serial connector with a static shock, swore like a motherfucker... and only then noticed that the machine had rebooted when it got zapped. Not a normal reboot. A "fuck you for zapping me, I'm going to cycle power and drop your unsaved work you punk motherfucker" reboot.
Wrong. Spread spectrum provides no more, and no less, bandwidth than channelized transmissions; what it does is provide a more graceful degradation of bandwidth instead. Channelized transmission has a hard limit - you can have X transmitters, each getting Y bandwidth. Spread spectrum, on the other hand, gives everyone XY bandwidth. *However*, as more people transmit, the signal to noise ratio goes down, which reduces the capacity of that bandwidth.
Look into Shannon's capacity theorem - it explains exactly what you can get out of a given amount of spectrum. While spread spectrum is good at avoiding hard limits on number of users, nothing can eliminate the hard limit on total information.
The better analogy would be: channelization is like DSL. Everyone gets their own pipe, which runs at the stated speed. Spread spectrum is like cable - if no one else is on, you can get lots of bandwidth, but as more people start using the same cable, the available bandwidth goes down.
Principle, service, their, principle, transmission, transmission, and I won't go into your grammar.
Spectrum is not bought, it is leased. Which eliminates the whole "They bought it, its theirs" argument. Much like national parks, spectrum is a resource that belongs to the people as a whole, and cannot be sold - it can be leased for use for the benefit of the public, but never sold outright.
Actually, requiring concealed weapons to be visible works pretty well by me. See, the assumption *even with concealed carry* is that you are *not* armed, because many/most people aren't. So it tells criminals who will be a hard target, and they go bother other, easier targets.
And if it starts to result in increased lethality, maybe dipshits who want to carry guns everywhere will figure out it doesn't actually make them any safer.
You know who it helps? Those of us who don't want to ban weapons outright, who understand the idea that it might benefit society to allow weapons ownership in order to resist an unjust government some day, but don't like the idea of the asshole at the bar who just spilled his drink all over you whipping out a.45 and shooting you dead in a drunken rage because you had the *nerve* to yell at him for doing so.
Guns rarely stop crime. Mostly, they make crimes that occur more deadly, more dangerous. I've been mugged, at gunpoint. I lost 20 bucks. Oh fucking well. If the friend I was walking to my car with had had a gun, which he lamented he did not a few minutes after our muggers had run off, we might well have died. As is, I lost 20 bucks, he lost 20 bucks. You think they wouldn't have mugged us if we'd had a gun? Fuck no. We'd have just been more likely to die in the process. If it was visible, they might have thought twice about doing it, but more likely they would have done the exact same thing they did - walked up, stuck a gun to my head, said "Give me your money", and taken my money. Except, in addition to the money, they'd have taken the gun, just to make sure. Or they'd have shot me. Just to make sure. Either way, I get no benefit from a concealed gun. Nor from a visible one. The only really beneficial plan was to not carry one in the first place.
Visible weapons let us know who the dangerous ones in our midst are. Not dangerous in the sense of "might shoot me", dangerous in the sense of "are capable of shooting me".
You misunderstood why I advocate visible weapons. Not for the benefit of those carrying. For the benefit of everyone else.
The D70, at least, can do a sustained 2.5 fps shooting rate until you fill the card; your first ~12 shots are at a slightly more rapid clip, but the sustained rate is 2.5 for JPEG Fine mode shooting (sustained RAW rate is 1 fps).
The D2H (Nikon sports journalism digital) can do 8 FPS for 40 images; not sure what its sustained rate drops to, if it even has a 'sustain' mode.
Me, I'm curious where this 30% is coming from - sooner or later you hit the fundamental limit of information beyond which you may not losslessly compress. I thought ZIP was already getting close to this point. So where's the 30%?
Considering there's no such key as "option" on Windows, and considering the original post it was in reply to was about right-dragging, it was pretty evidently a mistype. Yours, on the other hand, had no point when
Don't be so damn mysterious, what is this NEED for right-dragging? What function does that do and in which OS? TELL US DAMN YOU!:)
was the question being answered. Did you say anything about right-drag? No. You didn't. So back the fuck off. Fanboy.
Slashdot Mirror
Last I knew, LJ was handling ~2 posts per second on average, and who knows how many more lookups into their DBs, plus the more generally intensive nature of their site (images, lots more distinct entries than Slashdot, so caching into memory is somewhat less effective).
I honestly don't think the traffic is even comparable.
-"the current owners" -"the previous owners"
+"the data center"
You do realize that they don't own Internap, and that the *data center* died, right? They (Danga/Six Apart) probably were paying for battery backup and generator backup. It is not even *close* to their fault that the co-lo center didn't have such things, or had them improperly set up.
Many trolls get one free feeding from me, just in case.
If its still a troll after the free one, its either time to flame (i.e. I'm bored) or time to do something productive (i.e. go heatset all the shirts I just finished screening).
Really?
You see more than a few journalists being employed by the subject of their reporting, actually. Whenever a MSNBC analyst reports on Microsoft's latest business move, it is appropriate for them to note "MSNBC is part-owned by Microsoft." And generally they do.
Actually, from what info I could find on what they were actually *paid* to do, his role was mainly technical/strategy, in the sense of trying to help determine strategy, not in the sense of promoting it. They were paid for their work setting up the electronic infrastructure of the Dean campaign, and for their advice on direction of that infrastructure. Nowhere were they contractually obligated to promote Dean's message, as far as I can tell.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it. Even Zephyr isn't claiming they were contractually obligated to support the campaign; she's just stating that it was "implied", which is her view; Markos might have had a different understanding.
Zephyr's statements are probably as questionable as Markos's, since Zephyr is basically on a crusade right now to force bloggers to adhere to journalistic standards (whether or not you think this is good, it is definitely something that might affect statements made by Zephyr). And Markos at least revealed the connection, if not the possible depth of it.
And yeah, it still pales in comparison to taking government money to support a government viewpoint, and not admitting to any of it.
Of course, you're ignoring the fact that the columnist in question *admitted* he took money from DOE. He denies agreeing to run pro-administration columns in exchange for the money; however, since that might well be illegal, wouldn't you deny it? Admitting it in print would be pretty damn stupid.
As I said - you can argue whether the contract provision reported by USA Today is true, but there is NO QUESTION that he took money to run ads on a subject he then proceeded to write upon, in a manner extremely favorable towards the subject of those ads.
You can try to ignore it, but he fucked up, but good.
No.. it was treasury money, not Treasury money. It came from the treasury (wallet) of the US government. It specifically came from the budget of the Education Department, but they, like all Cabinet Departments, draw their funds from the treasury.
Gee, capitalization making a difference, who knew?
Markos was different because it wasn't secret; he openly admitted he was on payroll, and even had a disclaimer at the head of his blog.
Columnist denying it.
USA Today nailing him on it.
Washington Post doing the same.
FCC investigation into Armstrong Williams payola.
Seriously, this is not a conspiracy; it happened. You can argue whether (as USA Today states) he was contractually obligated to be favorable towards vouchers, but he definitely took money to run ads on them... and immediately afterward, wrote columns favorable of the Bush administration's position on the issue. This would be *incredibly* questionable, in and of itself. If he took the money with an additional obligation of running those columns, it is quite possibly illegal.
Seriously, all the best luck to you guys; hopefully you get some fantastic data out of it. I'm as excited about Huygens as I have been about Spirit/Opportunity, which is saying a lot.
If the field is produced inside of the conductor, explain to me exactly how it can emit without having a field line crossing through the conductor?
A shield broken by a wire is not a closed conducting surface, by the way, making your example completely outside the question, which is - how does a closed conducting shell know the difference between inside the shell and outside the shell? (Answer: it doesn't, and a *completely* closed conducting shell is a perfect shield for EM radiation).
Not all phones do, true. But some do. Which was my point. Further, *sufficient* 2.4 GHz phones *will* screw up a 2.4 GHz network. I could explain the math behind it to you, but I'll just tell you to read Shannon's Capacity Theorem until it gets through your fucking skull instead.
Which means I'm right. And still a dick.
And you've just described "beating". Imagine that, instead of that 10k sine at 20khz sampling, you have a 9.99kHz sine at 20k sampling. The point on the waveform that you're sampling is going to slowly change from cycle to cycle, and you're going to wind up with a 9.99kHz sine wave amplitude modulating - "beating" - at 0.01kHz.
Buying them a new phone won't do any goddamn good, when the phone still uses 2.4 GHz. Spectrum is finite; unregulated spectrum interferes. I was giving an example; in the real world, if their cordless was interfering, I'd go downstairs and say "Hey, your phone is fucking up my wireless. Let me see it and I'll see if I can figure out how to set it to stay away from the channel my wireless runs on." But sooner or later (and when you live in a row of 3-flats, sooner is more likely than later) you run out of available channels. Spectrum is finite. Texas sucks. These are unarguable truths.
Oh, wait, you take things way too seriously, on fucking Slashdot of all places. Enjoy your vendetta, twit.
I was working on one of our lab machines... had an exposed serial connector hanging out. I was wearing a sweater (I know, I know... I should have been wearing a ground strap too.)
Zapped the serial connector with a static shock, swore like a motherfucker... and only then noticed that the machine had rebooted when it got zapped. Not a normal reboot. A "fuck you for zapping me, I'm going to cycle power and drop your unsaved work you punk motherfucker" reboot.
Took me a few minutes to stop laughing.
They do, sort of. They don't pay a yearly fee, but they do have to reapply every few years.
Spectrum isn't sold, it is licensed. While it is *rare*, it is possible to revoke a spectrum license.
Right, because 2.4 GHz works great when my downstairs neighbors telephone drops my 802.11g network to its knees.
No....
Wrong. Spread spectrum provides no more, and no less, bandwidth than channelized transmissions; what it does is provide a more graceful degradation of bandwidth instead. Channelized transmission has a hard limit - you can have X transmitters, each getting Y bandwidth. Spread spectrum, on the other hand, gives everyone XY bandwidth. *However*, as more people transmit, the signal to noise ratio goes down, which reduces the capacity of that bandwidth.
Look into Shannon's capacity theorem - it explains exactly what you can get out of a given amount of spectrum. While spread spectrum is good at avoiding hard limits on number of users, nothing can eliminate the hard limit on total information.
The better analogy would be: channelization is like DSL. Everyone gets their own pipe, which runs at the stated speed. Spread spectrum is like cable - if no one else is on, you can get lots of bandwidth, but as more people start using the same cable, the available bandwidth goes down.
Principle, service, their, principle, transmission, transmission, and I won't go into your grammar.
Spectrum is not bought, it is leased. Which eliminates the whole "They bought it, its theirs" argument. Much like national parks, spectrum is a resource that belongs to the people as a whole, and cannot be sold - it can be leased for use for the benefit of the public, but never sold outright.
Actually, requiring concealed weapons to be visible works pretty well by me. See, the assumption *even with concealed carry* is that you are *not* armed, because many/most people aren't. So it tells criminals who will be a hard target, and they go bother other, easier targets.
.45 and shooting you dead in a drunken rage because you had the *nerve* to yell at him for doing so.
And if it starts to result in increased lethality, maybe dipshits who want to carry guns everywhere will figure out it doesn't actually make them any safer.
You know who it helps? Those of us who don't want to ban weapons outright, who understand the idea that it might benefit society to allow weapons ownership in order to resist an unjust government some day, but don't like the idea of the asshole at the bar who just spilled his drink all over you whipping out a
Guns rarely stop crime. Mostly, they make crimes that occur more deadly, more dangerous. I've been mugged, at gunpoint. I lost 20 bucks. Oh fucking well. If the friend I was walking to my car with had had a gun, which he lamented he did not a few minutes after our muggers had run off, we might well have died. As is, I lost 20 bucks, he lost 20 bucks. You think they wouldn't have mugged us if we'd had a gun? Fuck no. We'd have just been more likely to die in the process. If it was visible, they might have thought twice about doing it, but more likely they would have done the exact same thing they did - walked up, stuck a gun to my head, said "Give me your money", and taken my money. Except, in addition to the money, they'd have taken the gun, just to make sure. Or they'd have shot me. Just to make sure. Either way, I get no benefit from a concealed gun. Nor from a visible one. The only really beneficial plan was to not carry one in the first place.
Visible weapons let us know who the dangerous ones in our midst are. Not dangerous in the sense of "might shoot me", dangerous in the sense of "are capable of shooting me".
You misunderstood why I advocate visible weapons. Not for the benefit of those carrying. For the benefit of everyone else.
Actually, I very much dislike concealed-carry.
I think if you want to carry a gun in public, you should be required to carry it in full public view.
The D70, at least, can do a sustained 2.5 fps shooting rate until you fill the card; your first ~12 shots are at a slightly more rapid clip, but the sustained rate is 2.5 for JPEG Fine mode shooting (sustained RAW rate is 1 fps).
The D2H (Nikon sports journalism digital) can do 8 FPS for 40 images; not sure what its sustained rate drops to, if it even has a 'sustain' mode.
Me, I'm curious where this 30% is coming from - sooner or later you hit the fundamental limit of information beyond which you may not losslessly compress. I thought ZIP was already getting close to this point. So where's the 30%?
was the question being answered. Did you say anything about right-drag? No. You didn't. So back the fuck off. Fanboy.
Now you're getting it.