You don't even need that, you can just use an appropriate ferrite rod and decoder board with a handful of discrete components and hook it up to a serial port.
It uses what I call the Woz method, aka minimal hardware, do it in software. You will actually get a better result using that method as well because the computer is capturing the timestamps of the signal edges directly without it going through some intermediate process.
One day I will get around to doing the super noise filtering version using Baysian statistics. Basically the more accurately you already know the time the more you can filter the noise out of the signal.
Yes and the analysis was completely wrong. The amount of copper BT owns is a lot less than they claimed as they miscounted it, and a good deal of it is copper clad steel as copper does not have sufficient strength to be strung from a pole to the house.
An that is only for coal fired power stations. For example the part of the UK that I happen to live in Scotland gets 20% of it's electricity from renewables (mostly hydro) and 30% from nuclear. That is 50% low to zero carbon where plant efficiency is basically irrelevant for the context of the pollution of electric vehicles.
Data protection directive already covers this, because that would be the holding of inaccurate personal information, so they would have to correct it so it was accurate, which might in effect mean deleting it. What I don't have is a right to get Google to delete all information or random but accurate information about me.
No but the data protection directive requires all personal data to be up to date and accurate. If the information is wrong then you would have recourse under the data protection directive to require data holders to correct wrong information.
There is all the Irish ones that you spent decades shielding from justice back in the U.K. because it suited you. They where allowed to openly raise funds, and convicted terrorists where not extradited back to the U.K.
No you would need more than two copies. Imagine you have 100 such things as "Peter and Jane" or "Jane and Peter" that represent a one or zero. That is a 100 bit binary code we could put in the book. Assume that your book is going to be wildly successful so we allow 33 bits for the unique number (that's more than the current population of the world) and the remaining 67 to be an error code. Now to change the watermark you need to change 68 of the 100 individual marks in the book. The more error correcting bits you have the harder it gets to change the identification code.
However just two books will on average only identify 50 bits assuming the bits are entirely randomly distributed, so you would not have enough information from two books unless you struck lucky to remove or alter the watermark.
Obviously you can add more books and as you do so identify more of the individual marks, though there is a law of diminishing returns as the more books you add the fewer additional marks you identify. A third book will on average get you another 25 marks in my example and on average let you change the code.
It would I believe be impossible just using electronic versions to reconstruct an original book, though for the time being one could compare it to a dead tree version assuming it existed to determine the authoritative version of each mark.
Look inside your copy. I think you will find that the copyright on the Simarillion is Christopher's. It is at least in part shared, which in effect means that copyright does not expire until 70 years after Christopher's death.
Terry Pratchett has been using this tactic as well. If you look at his latest books, the copyright is shared with his wife in as far as I am concerned despicable copyright extension grab.
Berne Convention is the realistic minimum that you could pear back copyright to. That is life plus fifty, which is better than we have now, both in the USA and Europe.
Yes because the vast majority of people who oppose changing the second amendment (which is what gun control is in effect) arguments start with this is the constitution and any change to that is tantamount to treason, and stop trying to take away my god given constitutional rights. It may then move onto a rational argument on whether everyone carrying guns leads to a safer society and whether the second amendment makes practical sense in the context of 21st century America, but truth be told this is actually very rare.
Consequently all those who feel that repealing the 18th amendment is fine but you cannot even talk about repealing or modifying the second are morally bankrupt. That is the majority of the gun lobby. Then again I suspect that most people with a stake in the argument are blinded to the truth of this. The shame is that while the founding fathers clearly had the foresight to see that the constitution as a static document that was unchanging through history would be monumentally dumb, a large proportion of the current population can't see that.
The issue is the Debian team where demanding things that they could not expect. The maintainer of d-m.o was free to do whatever they wanted which includes maintaining separate versions of packages in Debian proper. They pointlessly demanded that he stop using debian in his domain name which achieved nothing. It did not reduce any confusion, and it did not stop him doing what he was doing before. Worse than that the domain expired and some random other person picked it up.
The Debian team have a habit of being self obsessed holier than though righteous pricks at times. This is one of them.
As far as I can make out Microsoft even in Windows Server Core. I was most disappointed to find an admittedly very basic graphical interface with windows server 2012 core.
The Linux equivalent would be still having X11 with twm and some xterms. Sure a lot less overhead than a Gnome desktop, but no a text console interface by any means either.
The point is that as soon as anyone talks about gun control, which in effect means amending the constitution the gun lobby go mental and start shouting about their second amendment rights and how any gun control is an infringement of their constitutional rights and must be stopped at all costs. In this context exactly how would I go about getting the second amendment amended and/or repelled?
Yes the first ten amendments are special as they came as a single package in the Bill of Rights. However there is nothing in the constitution that prevents them being repealed either. So why does the gun lobby scream blue murder about not messing with the constitution as soon as someone talks about gun control.
Further the vast majority of these people who shout second amendment as soon as someone talks about gun control will also drink alcohol which makes them hypocrites of the first order.
Of course I am in not a US citizen so I am in no position to get the second amendment repelled. On the other hand as a total outside with no stake I am able to look in and see the moral bankruptcy of the gun lobby for what it is.
I would also add for good measure that the I view the pro gun control side as moral cowards for not tackling gun control for what it is; an amendment to the constitution.
My personal view point is that the only purpose of owning a gun would be to increase ones safety. It is far from clear that owning a gun actually does that. It's game theory if only I have a gun then I am probably safer. If everyone has a gun then I am almost certainly less safe. The problem is if most people have a gun then I am probably also less safe as well, and getting from most people having a gun to most people not having a gun is the hard bit.
I am fortunate to live in a country where only a small minority of people own guns, and my chances of being murdered are much lower than in the USA.
I am European and pro gun control. However here is a fact, removing a suicide method (in this instance shooting yourself) has zero long term effect on suicide rates. You will get a short term reduction that, but in the long term they just find another method.
There are a lot of studies on this. A classic one is the in the UK they limited the number of paracetamol's you can buy at once to 32. There was a short term reduction in the number of successful suicides. After a couple of years the suicide rate was right back to where it was before.
Consequently restricting anything to reduce suicide rates is a pointless waste of time, and anyone advocating restricting guns to reduce suicide rates is a nutty as the gun nuts.
All the people citing the second amendment need to understand that it is an AMENDMENT, and as the 21st amendment laid bare, amendment's can be repealed.
And there was me thinking that the US constitution was not a static document. For starters the right to bear arms is covered by the second AMENDMENT. Heck the original document in article five lays out how the constitution can be amended.
Then there is of course the 18th amendment, which was repealed by the 21st amendment. The US constitution has so far been amended 27 times, and on at least one occasion repealing a previous amendment.
As such there is precedence for a new amendment that repeals in full or part the second amendment. Anyone in the USA who opposes any change to the second amendment but drinks alcohol is a morally bankrupt hypocrite not worth listening to, which I would imagine is most of them.
It never ceases to surprise me just how ignorant US citizens are of there own constitution.
He is referring to the fact that the energy density of the sun's fusion process is actually quite low, calculated to be around 275 Watts per cubic metre. I can assure you that I can achieve a higher power density burning hydrogen and oxygen.
The thing is the sun is massive, and is turning hydrogen into helium at the rate of 6.2Ã--e11 kg per second, that is roughly the equivalent of 92 billion megatons of TNT per second.
Germany death rate per billion vehicle km 7.2, the USA 8.5 (I blame that on your lack of roundabouts and no requirement to wear seatbelts) and the UK 5.7. Interestingly eastern European counties are much worse than western European ones.
Anyway no matter how you look at it, deaths per vehicle, deaths per head of population, deaths per billion vehicle km, Germany with unrestricted speeds is worse than the UK with restricted speeds. If we had Germany's record in the UK we would be looking at approximately an extra 600 deaths a year on the road. That would be political suicide.
What is interesting is that some places are literally lethal to drive United Arab Emirates at 310 per 1 billion vehicle km, though Togo with 14,000 per 10000 motor vehicles is crazy as well.
Nope the changes of a normal perfectly fertile woman getting pregnant and going to term with a live birth are 20% per cycle, whether you are trying or not. That you and your wife managed it first time on three occasions is just random good luck on your behalf. In no small part because your wife did not miscarry.
It's a sample size of one which statistically is irrelevant. There are plenty of couples that have no fertility problems are trying all the techniques etc. and get no where for potentially years.
Remember the 20% means that if you take 100 perfectly fertile couples, after two years there are still four couples without a child.
Not it did not. What happened is we switched to using UTC as our prescribed time source that differs by varying amounts from GMT. You can still derive GMT/UT1 by adding the current offset from UTC know as DUT1 to UTC
Slashdot Mirror
You don't even need that, you can just use an appropriate ferrite rod and decoder board with a handful of discrete components and hook it up to a serial port.
http://www.buzzard.me.uk/jonathan/radioclock.html
It uses what I call the Woz method, aka minimal hardware, do it in software. You will actually get a better result using that method as well because the computer is capturing the timestamps of the signal edges directly without it going through some intermediate process.
One day I will get around to doing the super noise filtering version using Baysian statistics. Basically the more accurately you already know the time the more you can filter the noise out of the signal.
Yes and the analysis was completely wrong. The amount of copper BT owns is a lot less than they claimed as they miscounted it, and a good deal of it is copper clad steel as copper does not have sufficient strength to be strung from a pole to the house.
An that is only for coal fired power stations. For example the part of the UK that I happen to live in Scotland gets 20% of it's electricity from renewables (mostly hydro) and 30% from nuclear. That is 50% low to zero carbon where plant efficiency is basically irrelevant for the context of the pollution of electric vehicles.
Except HDCP is thoroughly broken, so all I need is a HDCP capture device and I can get access to that way.
Data protection directive already covers this, because that would be the holding of inaccurate personal information, so they would have to correct it so it was accurate, which might in effect mean deleting it. What I don't have is a right to get Google to delete all information or random but accurate information about me.
No but the data protection directive requires all personal data to be up to date and accurate. If the information is wrong then you would have recourse under the data protection directive to require data holders to correct wrong information.
There is all the Irish ones that you spent decades shielding from justice back in the U.K. because it suited you. They where allowed to openly raise funds, and convicted terrorists where not extradited back to the U.K.
No you would need more than two copies. Imagine you have 100 such things as "Peter and Jane" or "Jane and Peter" that represent a one or zero. That is a 100 bit binary code we could put in the book. Assume that your book is going to be wildly successful so we allow 33 bits for the unique number (that's more than the current population of the world) and the remaining 67 to be an error code. Now to change the watermark you need to change 68 of the 100 individual marks in the book. The more error correcting bits you have the harder it gets to change the identification code.
However just two books will on average only identify 50 bits assuming the bits are entirely randomly distributed, so you would not have enough information from two books unless you struck lucky to remove or alter the watermark.
Obviously you can add more books and as you do so identify more of the individual marks, though there is a law of diminishing returns as the more books you add the fewer additional marks you identify. A third book will on average get you another 25 marks in my example and on average let you change the code.
It would I believe be impossible just using electronic versions to reconstruct an original book, though for the time being one could compare it to a dead tree version assuming it existed to determine the authoritative version of each mark.
The suspects reference sample should be tested at an entirely different facility from the crime scene samples.
Look inside your copy. I think you will find that the copyright on the Simarillion is Christopher's. It is at least in part shared, which in effect means that copyright does not expire until 70 years after Christopher's death.
Terry Pratchett has been using this tactic as well. If you look at his latest books, the copyright is shared with his wife in as far as I am concerned despicable copyright extension grab.
Berne Convention is the realistic minimum that you could pear back copyright to. That is life plus fifty, which is better than we have now, both in the USA and Europe.
Yes because the vast majority of people who oppose changing the second amendment (which is what gun control is in effect) arguments start with this is the constitution and any change to that is tantamount to treason, and stop trying to take away my god given constitutional rights. It may then move onto a rational argument on whether everyone carrying guns leads to a safer society and whether the second amendment makes practical sense in the context of 21st century America, but truth be told this is actually very rare.
Consequently all those who feel that repealing the 18th amendment is fine but you cannot even talk about repealing or modifying the second are morally bankrupt. That is the majority of the gun lobby. Then again I suspect that most people with a stake in the argument are blinded to the truth of this. The shame is that while the founding fathers clearly had the foresight to see that the constitution as a static document that was unchanging through history would be monumentally dumb, a large proportion of the current population can't see that.
The issue is the Debian team where demanding things that they could not expect. The maintainer of d-m.o was free to do whatever they wanted which includes maintaining separate versions of packages in Debian proper. They pointlessly demanded that he stop using debian in his domain name which achieved nothing. It did not reduce any confusion, and it did not stop him doing what he was doing before. Worse than that the domain expired and some random other person picked it up.
The Debian team have a habit of being self obsessed holier than though righteous pricks at times. This is one of them.
As far as I can make out Microsoft even in Windows Server Core. I was most disappointed to find an admittedly very basic graphical interface with windows server 2012 core.
The Linux equivalent would be still having X11 with twm and some xterms. Sure a lot less overhead than a Gnome desktop, but no a text console interface by any means either.
The point is that as soon as anyone talks about gun control, which in effect means amending the constitution the gun lobby go mental and start shouting about their second amendment rights and how any gun control is an infringement of their constitutional rights and must be stopped at all costs. In this context exactly how would I go about getting the second amendment amended and/or repelled?
Yes the first ten amendments are special as they came as a single package in the Bill of Rights. However there is nothing in the constitution that prevents them being repealed either. So why does the gun lobby scream blue murder about not messing with the constitution as soon as someone talks about gun control.
Further the vast majority of these people who shout second amendment as soon as someone talks about gun control will also drink alcohol which makes them hypocrites of the first order.
Of course I am in not a US citizen so I am in no position to get the second amendment repelled. On the other hand as a total outside with no stake I am able to look in and see the moral bankruptcy of the gun lobby for what it is.
I would also add for good measure that the I view the pro gun control side as moral cowards for not tackling gun control for what it is; an amendment to the constitution.
My personal view point is that the only purpose of owning a gun would be to increase ones safety. It is far from clear that owning a gun actually does that. It's game theory if only I have a gun then I am probably safer. If everyone has a gun then I am almost certainly less safe. The problem is if most people have a gun then I am probably also less safe as well, and getting from most people having a gun to most people not having a gun is the hard bit.
I am fortunate to live in a country where only a small minority of people own guns, and my chances of being murdered are much lower than in the USA.
I am European and pro gun control. However here is a fact, removing a suicide method (in this instance shooting yourself) has zero long term effect on suicide rates. You will get a short term reduction that, but in the long term they just find another method.
There are a lot of studies on this. A classic one is the in the UK they limited the number of paracetamol's you can buy at once to 32. There was a short term reduction in the number of successful suicides. After a couple of years the suicide rate was right back to where it was before.
Consequently restricting anything to reduce suicide rates is a pointless waste of time, and anyone advocating restricting guns to reduce suicide rates is a nutty as the gun nuts.
Not only there is nothing in the constitution that prevents the second amendment being repelled. See 18th and 21st amendments for examples.
All the people citing the second amendment need to understand that it is an AMENDMENT, and as the 21st amendment laid bare, amendment's can be repealed.
And there was me thinking that the US constitution was not a static document. For starters the right to bear arms is covered by the second AMENDMENT. Heck the original document in article five lays out how the constitution can be amended.
Then there is of course the 18th amendment, which was repealed by the 21st amendment. The US constitution has so far been amended 27 times, and on at least one occasion repealing a previous amendment.
As such there is precedence for a new amendment that repeals in full or part the second amendment. Anyone in the USA who opposes any change to the second amendment but drinks alcohol is a morally bankrupt hypocrite not worth listening to, which I would imagine is most of them.
It never ceases to surprise me just how ignorant US citizens are of there own constitution.
He is referring to the fact that the energy density of the sun's fusion process is actually quite low, calculated to be around 275 Watts per cubic metre. I can assure you that I can achieve a higher power density burning hydrogen and oxygen.
The thing is the sun is massive, and is turning hydrogen into helium at the rate of 6.2Ã--e11 kg per second, that is roughly the equivalent of 92 billion megatons of TNT per second.
Germany death rate per billion vehicle km 7.2, the USA 8.5 (I blame that on your lack of roundabouts and no requirement to wear seatbelts) and the UK 5.7. Interestingly eastern European counties are much worse than western European ones.
Anyway no matter how you look at it, deaths per vehicle, deaths per head of population, deaths per billion vehicle km, Germany with unrestricted speeds is worse than the UK with restricted speeds. If we had Germany's record in the UK we would be looking at approximately an extra 600 deaths a year on the road. That would be political suicide.
What is interesting is that some places are literally lethal to drive United Arab Emirates at 310 per 1 billion vehicle km, though Togo with 14,000 per 10000 motor vehicles is crazy as well.
Nope the changes of a normal perfectly fertile woman getting pregnant and going to term with a live birth are 20% per cycle, whether you are trying or not. That you and your wife managed it first time on three occasions is just random good luck on your behalf. In no small part because your wife did not miscarry.
It's a sample size of one which statistically is irrelevant. There are plenty of couples that have no fertility problems are trying all the techniques etc. and get no where for potentially years.
Remember the 20% means that if you take 100 perfectly fertile couples, after two years there are still four couples without a child.
Might be cheaper to do cut and cover tunnels while you are actually constructing the canal.
Current incumbent is repeatedly failing. QED. What more do you need to know?
Not it did not. What happened is we switched to using UTC as our prescribed time source that differs by varying amounts from GMT. You can still derive GMT/UT1 by adding the current offset from UTC know as DUT1 to UTC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DUT1