I can't give you a general answer, only descibe the situation here in germany. If you shoot somebody, there will be a proceedings by the federal prosecutor. If it's reasonable to assume you aimed at an enemy combattant, case closed. If it's reasonable to assume you knowingly shot at a civilian, there will be a regular murder/manslaughter case.
In a war-like zone, the soldier will probably have the benefit of doubt, i.e. if the situation is unclear, or the soldier could resonably believe to be in imminent danger, he will not be prosecuted.
If the police tell you to do something, it should be legal for you because the police officer is an authority figure relative to you. That doesn't mean that the officer wouldn't go to jail for giving the order.
In a similar fashion, if a police captain orders an officer to kill someone illegally, then the captain should go to jail, not the officer (unless the officer should have had reason to reject the order).
My country had a mandatory military service, so I've been a soldier for some time. As soldiers, we were legally obliged to deny direct orders if they were unlawful. So even if we were ordered by military authority, we'd go in jail for shooting some random civilian (the one who gave the order would probably be jailed, too). And that is a GOOD thing, because it requires the soldiers to keep thinking about their own actions. And it's the same for civilians. If you do something illegal, you are responsible for that action. If somebody else told you to do so, he may be held responsible too, but that does not change the fact that you are responsible for your own actions.
Of course, and if the lead driver gets killed in an accident and some of the passangers in other cars survive the crash, they will be automatically shot to follow the lead as closely as possible. Also, everbody who works in automotive research is stupid and not able to see this obvious problem.
Nobody suggests thouse would be made mandatory. I like to drive fast as well, and here, driving 200 km/h is even legal. But most of the times, I only care about arriving save and as relaxed as possible at my destinations, and then I'd really like to be able to join a road train.
The adaption will be slow, but I'd say it's not impossible. Adaptive cruise control is commercially available, and that teaches drivers to simply follow the speed of other cars. The next step would prpbably to evolve systems that warn on leaving your lane to systems that actively keep your lane. From there, you are almost at "road trains". If will take a couple of years, but I wouldn't consider it to be impossible at all.
Fuel economy is an important topic in countries with high gas prices. Fuel prices in Germany are 1,57 EUR/l or about 8 US$/gallon. Accordingly, the average car in europe has a much better fuel economy then the avarage US car.
Additionally, one of the major advantages of "road trains" is not only economy, but comfort. Driving a few hours on the highway is tiering, if you can just add your car to any passing road train and let your car drive, you wil reach your destination much more relaxed.
I'd bet that every car will be equipped with safety systems of its own, so if the leading car runs amok, the rest will simply initiate an emergency break.
I'd bet all those cars have to be equipped with active ACC (adaptive cruise control) systems. Those use radar or lidar, and sometimes other optical systems, to determine speed of and distance to other cars, and can actively control the speed of your car accordingly. Those are commercially available since over 10 years, so sudden deceleration of idividal members of such a train would not have any serious consequences.
I'd guess if somebody has to fuel up, the driver has to manually pull his car out of the train, while the rest of the trains continues the travel.
Systems that match your speed to the car in front of you, including breaking to a full stop, are commercially available for over 10 years. I've personally driven in such a car, and the driving experience is (IMHO) fantastic.
However, those systems don't take over steering, so you still have to operate the wheel and thus keep attention on the road. They return full control to the driver in case the surroundings get "dangerous", i.e. outside of the parameters, e.g. if you get cut by somebody. In that case, you get a pretty loud warning, and the break force booster gets prepared for an emergency break.
Office 2010 supports only ECMA-376 read support. Read/Write support is for ISO/IEC 29500 Transitional, and they claim to be able to read ISO/IEC 29500 Strict.
At the current state of copyright law, it's probably better to be caught tunneling into a game shop and stealing physical copies than downloading the same amount of copies on bittorrent.
The need to point out dangers that are not obvious to a customer is, in principle, a sane approach. But it entirely depends on the level of common sense you can legally assume the consumer to possess. In europe, you usually assume the consumer to be mostly sane, and not retarded. In that case, the system works fine. In the US, you sometimes seem to assume that the customer is the most redarded dickhead nature was able to create. In that case, you are stuck with insanely stupid warnings like "hot fluids must be handled with care", "objects in the mirror are closer than they appear" and "do not dry your pet in the microwave".
If you try to sue a car manufacturer in europe because you didn't know that cars in the rear view mirror appear smaller than in reality, you most probably would be deemed unfit to operate a vehicle and get your drivers licence invalidated.
If you strech the definition of "working" to mean "practical", then the summary is correct. The Manchester Baby was technically first, but it was never meant to be a usefull computing device.
You solution would probably introduce a whole lot of DUPs, because the bottom of the stack will be retransmitted before it leaves the stack. Also, packet reordering with TCP sucks.
However, if you throw a frog into boiling water, he will probably die before he has a chance of hopping out. (No frogs were harmed in making this post)
Larger buffers do not really decrease congestion as far as TCP is concerned: With a large buffer TCP will simply send more/faster, untill the buffer overflows. The congestion will simply manifest a tiny bit later, but much, much severe.
As long as the majority of traffic is TCP or at least has somne sensible congestion avoidance: Same packetloss as today or less. Today and then, TCP increases transmissions until packets are dropped. With (too much) buffering, all you do is delaying that point until TCP actually sends much too fast, and increase latency for everybody.
The problem is that the whole point of TCP is to 1. maximize your throughput while 2. avoid congestion. Without excessive buffering, TCP actually can provide both goals. Add to much buffer, you break TCP congestion avoidance and thus your connection. Rate limiting is not a solution, but a mere work-around. TCP should (and in earlier times, could) provide congestion avoidance on its own.
The problem is, that the server does not know the bandwidth himself, because the bandwidth cap is SOMEWHERE on the path (most likely between your DSL/cable modem and your ISP, but it could be anywhere else. Only the *routers* know when they are capped. This is why ECN was invented: It allows the routers to tell you thjey are capped. Only problem so far: Nobody uses ECN (Chicken,Egg,etc).
Slashdot Mirror
I can't give you a general answer, only descibe the situation here in germany. If you shoot somebody, there will be a proceedings by the federal prosecutor. If it's reasonable to assume you aimed at an enemy combattant, case closed. If it's reasonable to assume you knowingly shot at a civilian, there will be a regular murder/manslaughter case.
In a war-like zone, the soldier will probably have the benefit of doubt, i.e. if the situation is unclear, or the soldier could resonably believe to be in imminent danger, he will not be prosecuted.
If the police tell you to do something, it should be legal for you because the police officer is an authority figure relative to you. That doesn't mean that the officer wouldn't go to jail for giving the order.
In a similar fashion, if a police captain orders an officer to kill someone illegally, then the captain should go to jail, not the officer (unless the officer should have had reason to reject the order).
My country had a mandatory military service, so I've been a soldier for some time. As soldiers, we were legally obliged to deny direct orders if they were unlawful. So even if we were ordered by military authority, we'd go in jail for shooting some random civilian (the one who gave the order would probably be jailed, too). And that is a GOOD thing, because it requires the soldiers to keep thinking about their own actions. And it's the same for civilians. If you do something illegal, you are responsible for that action. If somebody else told you to do so, he may be held responsible too, but that does not change the fact that you are responsible for your own actions.
Of course, and if the lead driver gets killed in an accident and some of the passangers in other cars survive the crash, they will be automatically shot to follow the lead as closely as possible. Also, everbody who works in automotive research is stupid and not able to see this obvious problem.
Nobody suggests thouse would be made mandatory. I like to drive fast as well, and here, driving 200 km/h is even legal. But most of the times, I only care about arriving save and as relaxed as possible at my destinations, and then I'd really like to be able to join a road train.
The adaption will be slow, but I'd say it's not impossible. Adaptive cruise control is commercially available, and that teaches drivers to simply follow the speed of other cars. The next step would prpbably to evolve systems that warn on leaving your lane to systems that actively keep your lane. From there, you are almost at "road trains". If will take a couple of years, but I wouldn't consider it to be impossible at all.
Fuel economy is an important topic in countries with high gas prices. Fuel prices in Germany are 1,57 EUR/l or about 8 US$/gallon. Accordingly, the average car in europe has a much better fuel economy then the avarage US car.
Additionally, one of the major advantages of "road trains" is not only economy, but comfort. Driving a few hours on the highway is tiering, if you can just add your car to any passing road train and let your car drive, you wil reach your destination much more relaxed.
I'd bet that every car will be equipped with safety systems of its own, so if the leading car runs amok, the rest will simply initiate an emergency break.
I'd bet all those cars have to be equipped with active ACC (adaptive cruise control) systems. Those use radar or lidar, and sometimes other optical systems, to determine speed of and distance to other cars, and can actively control the speed of your car accordingly. Those are commercially available since over 10 years, so sudden deceleration of idividal members of such a train would not have any serious consequences.
I'd guess if somebody has to fuel up, the driver has to manually pull his car out of the train, while the rest of the trains continues the travel.
Systems that match your speed to the car in front of you, including breaking to a full stop, are commercially available for over 10 years. I've personally driven in such a car, and the driving experience is (IMHO) fantastic.
However, those systems don't take over steering, so you still have to operate the wheel and thus keep attention on the road. They return full control to the driver in case the surroundings get "dangerous", i.e. outside of the parameters, e.g. if you get cut by somebody. In that case, you get a pretty loud warning, and the break force booster gets prepared for an emergency break.
Office 2010 supports only ECMA-376 read support. Read/Write support is for ISO/IEC 29500 Transitional, and they claim to be able to read ISO/IEC 29500 Strict.
Not even MS Office is able to write OOXML as in ECMA-376:
Office 2010 provides read support for ECMA-376, read/write support for ISO/IEC 29500 Transitional, and read support for ISO/IEC 29500 Strict.
(emphasis mine) [source: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc179190.aspx ]
The stuff is neither aluminum nor transparent, so no, not at all.
At the current state of copyright law, it's probably better to be caught tunneling into a game shop and stealing physical copies than downloading the same amount of copies on bittorrent.
The need to point out dangers that are not obvious to a customer is, in principle, a sane approach. But it entirely depends on the level of common sense you can legally assume the consumer to possess. In europe, you usually assume the consumer to be mostly sane, and not retarded. In that case, the system works fine. In the US, you sometimes seem to assume that the customer is the most redarded dickhead nature was able to create. In that case, you are stuck with insanely stupid warnings like "hot fluids must be handled with care", "objects in the mirror are closer than they appear" and "do not dry your pet in the microwave".
If you try to sue a car manufacturer in europe because you didn't know that cars in the rear view mirror appear smaller than in reality, you most probably would be deemed unfit to operate a vehicle and get your drivers licence invalidated.
Urge to destroy world ... rising
If you strech the definition of "working" to mean "practical", then the summary is correct. The Manchester Baby was technically first, but it was never meant to be a usefull computing device.
Oblig Ctrl+Alt+Del
Except that not noticing a circle changing to a star is not really explainable with auto white-balance. (Watch the last video in TFA)
You solution would probably introduce a whole lot of DUPs, because the bottom of the stack will be retransmitted before it leaves the stack. Also, packet reordering with TCP sucks.
You obviously never tried to play an online game while your room mates saturate the link with bittorent.
However, if you throw a frog into boiling water, he will probably die before he has a chance of hopping out. (No frogs were harmed in making this post)
Larger buffers do not really decrease congestion as far as TCP is concerned: With a large buffer TCP will simply send more/faster, untill the buffer overflows. The congestion will simply manifest a tiny bit later, but much, much severe.
As long as the majority of traffic is TCP or at least has somne sensible congestion avoidance: Same packetloss as today or less. Today and then, TCP increases transmissions until packets are dropped. With (too much) buffering, all you do is delaying that point until TCP actually sends much too fast, and increase latency for everybody.
The problem is that the whole point of TCP is to 1. maximize your throughput while 2. avoid congestion. Without excessive buffering, TCP actually can provide both goals. Add to much buffer, you break TCP congestion avoidance and thus your connection. Rate limiting is not a solution, but a mere work-around. TCP should (and in earlier times, could) provide congestion avoidance on its own.
The problem is, that the server does not know the bandwidth himself, because the bandwidth cap is SOMEWHERE on the path (most likely between your DSL/cable modem and your ISP, but it could be anywhere else. Only the *routers* know when they are capped. This is why ECN was invented: It allows the routers to tell you thjey are capped. Only problem so far: Nobody uses ECN (Chicken,Egg,etc).
If precognition worked, they would make billions on the stock exchange. The 1m US$ would only be a tiny bonus.